Opi.Gross.May1

Feminism holds a negative connotation with both men and women, even though the definition is about equality. Women’s suffrage and other equality movements have put in a lot of work, and columnist Hailey Gross argues that women in the work force often hold themselves back.

When the topic of women’s rights comes up outside of an American history lecture, a common reaction is a groan and awkward shuffle away from the speaker. The back-and-forth arguments about female equality (especially scant months after a vicious election year) can be a wearying and groan-worthy subject.

Despite awareness that women and men are still not equal both socially and in the workplace, women’s rights are an uncomfortable and dreaded topic. In fact, it seems like most specifically female things are scorned. When helping a friend sign up for classes one semester, I mentioned a women’s studies course that would fill a requirement; in response, my friend simply wrinkled her nose in disgust.

What’s with the disdain for women’s rights, women’s classes, and especially feminism? Technically, nothing. Without early women’s rights movements in history, women would not have the right to inherit, vote, or work outside of the household. However, these issues seem like dilemmas of yesteryear.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, feminism is “the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of equality of the sexes.” Now, that doesn’t sound too bad; equality is something we Americans (perhaps falsely) pride ourselves on. But, as the women’s rights blog "Who Needs Feminism?" says, a feminist is seen as a “man-hating, bra-burning, whiny liberal.”

Unfortunately, feminism has in recent years built itself up to the point of ridicule. Many feminists have condemned themselves and their cause with the classic “boy who cried wolf” problem. The more extreme feminists don’t hesitate to deliver verbal lashings to men and women who they feel perpetuate gender roles and stereotypes. By seeing sexism and gender subjugation lurking in every corner, many feminists are incapable of being taken seriously.

As a result, the image of a “feminist” conjures up a different image than it used to. These days, we picture a sour-faced woman with her hair chopped short, possibly with unshaven legs. Whether accurate or not (though usually not) this image has become a comical trope for many people.

As feminism is now a familiar comedic hyperbole, it stopped being an effective political or social tool. As it becomes an object of ridicule, the truth of women’s rights as they stand today fades into irrelevance. When the sole idea of feminism becomes a joke or something at which to scoff, we wonder, do we really need feminism? Are women’s rights still an issue?

With hot political items such as abortion and contraceptive issues, it seems that women’s rights are in at least one form relevant. However, the more ignored side of women’s rights, such as inequality in the workforce, or even in society, exists too. However, enough progress has been made by our predecessors that blame cannot be fully placed on a “male-dominated society” any longer.

Women, too, can share guilt for the inequalities that women still face. Not, as radical feminists believe, by wearing makeup and reading Cosmopolitan. In the corporate world, where we hear of so much injustice, women hold themselves back. A 2009 OnePoll survey showed that, startlingly, most women believe men are better company leaders. The Morton Report suggests that this and other female tendencies to keep each other down are a result of women who “take pride in this heritage of oppressive struggle.” True or not, it’s mentalities like these that will keep individual women from achieving their personal goals.

Whether or not you are an advocate of women’s rights, most can agree that how much you are paid or how much respect you garner in society should not be dependent on your sex. Corporate prestige should come from ambition and hard work, not whether you wear a suit or skirt to work.

In the last 100 years, huge achievements have been made by feminists. We can be grateful for women’s suffrage and the social leaps and bounds made in the 1960s. It’s unfortunate that the word “feminism” has been corrupted by men and women both, to have extreme negative connotations.

By separating the extreme feminists from the general pro-women’s-rights activists, it’s easier to identify reasonable goals. We have to be grateful for what those before us have done, but in women’s rights (and other civil rights arenas) there is still work to be done.


Hailey Gross is a sophomore in English from Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Opinion Policies

Opinions expressed in columns and letters are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Daily or organizations with which the author(s) are associated. 

Feedback policy: The Daily encourages discussion but does not guarantee its publication. We reserve the right to edit or reject any letter or online feedback. The goal of the opinion section is to spark civil public discourse by publishing opinions based on facts that articulate an argument. The merit of a piece's ability to further public discourse, among other factors, will be considered when determining if a piece is publication worthy. 

Letter to the Editor Submission Link

(67) comments

Steve Gregg

Feminism is a joke, particularly in the US. Women are the majority in America, live longer and easier lives, possess or control most of the wealth, are pampered like little princesses, and have doors opened for them from coast to coast, and they are bitching about inequality. Give us a break!

No, women are not equal socially. They are superior. I mean, really, who chases who in the courting ritual? Who pays for dinner and entertainment? Who courts who?

The reason why women are not competitive with men in the workplace is that they chose jobs that will support their families rather than jobs in which they can advance, they don't put in the hours men do, and they often drop out of the workforce after they have a child or two.

Feminism has sold American women a fantasy that they can have it all, be a mother and a successful business executive. It's pure nonsense. You have only so many hours in a day. You can be a success in business or motherhood. Pick one. Do you want to spend your time hugging your PowerPoint presentation or your children?

Another reason feminism deserves ridicule is that it sees sexism in the clouds. They waste everyone's time trying to change the language to fit their idiot politics. I laugh every time I hear the word chairperson. For Pete's sake, if a woman is a chairman does she have less power? Should we abolish Thursday, Thor's Day, because we don't adhere to Viking worship? Many words originate in abandoned traditions. Should we waste our time changing them to suit passing fads?

Another reason why feminism has become so obnoxious is that it is a vehicle for misandry, ie man-hating. Look at network television these days and you will find every man portrayed as a boob or moral degenerate. It is no wonder male viewers flee this politically correct feminism to the History Channel or Military Channel where men are heroes.

Man-hating is official policy in the workplace, where any women can concoct the most absurd accusation of harassment and put a man through hell. When you enter the working world, you will see a steady dribble of men fired for harassment. You will never see a woman fired for harassment, ever. It's not like they are not doing it, either, though mostly to each other. You can't get ten women in an office without one of them going home in tears every night because one or more of the rest of them treated her like crap. Most women would rather work for men because they are treated better.

The result of this is that older men in the work place avoid dealing with twenty-something women because they are bogus harassment complaints waiting to happen. They hang around with the other guys with whom they can talk openly and freely. When a woman enters the room, the men shut up and raise their guard. The rise of the harassment culture at work has pretty much destroyed any chance of young women getting mentored by their male bosses. And female superiors are more likely to undermine their women subordinates than help them.

Rob Stone

After reading this article I saw that there was one comment. Before even clicking onto the page I knew it was going to be an offesivenly, ignorant, sexist comment from Steve Gregg.

But I underestimated him.

I have to say, it is both pitiful and embarrassing when straight, white guys lecture everyone else about how good they have it. And it's all because of straight, white guys. No discrimination or bigotry exists. Straight, white guys have always treated everyone else with tremendous respect. Straight, white guys like Steve can't figure out why all those pampered girls and non-whites and non-straights keep complaining.

"The reason why women are not competitive with men in the workplace is that they chose jobs that will support their families rather than jobs in which they can advance, they don't put in the hours men do, and they often drop out of the workforce after they have a child or two."--Steve Gregg

Of course! Why do they choose to be maids when they could have chosen to be a CEO? They should have learned what we men learned a long time ago; rather than concerning themselves with supporting their families, they should go for the bucks! Then the women can hold the doors for us. What a luxury that would be. Talk about having it good!

"Feminism has sold American women a fantasy that they can have it all, be a mother and a successful business executive. It's pure nonsense."--Steve Gregg

Absolutely. When will women learn their place?

"They waste everyone's time trying to change the language to fit their idiot politics."--Steve Gregg

Right again. They should just suck it up and keep using the terms that we men created. Chairperson! Sounds like a person with wooden legs for god's sake! It's important that all chairs be referred to as a masculine entity. I mean, we invented chairmen in the first place. Credit where credit is due!

"Another reason why feminism has become so obnoxious is that it is a vehicle for misandry, ie man-hating."--Steve Gregg

Thanks for defining the word. Women especially really appreciate it when guys tell them things they already know.

"Look at network television these days and you will find every man portrayed as a boob or moral degenerate."--Steve Gregg

Yep. EVERY one of them. Not one single man is portrayed as a non-boob or as having any good morals. On the other hand, every woman is portrayed as perfect.

"It is no wonder male viewers flee this politically correct feminism to the History Channel or Military Channel where men are heroes."--Steve Gregg

It's called REALITY tv my friend!

"Man-hating is official policy in the workplace, where any women can concoct the most absurd accusation of harassment and put a man through hell."--Steve Gregg

It's actually on page 4 of my employment handbook: "Non man-hating is grounds for dismissal." On page 5: "Any charges of sexual harrassment made against a male will be treated as truth and he will be dismissed because he deserves it." Damned liberals.

"You can't get ten women in an office without one of them going home in tears every night because one or more of the rest of them treated her like crap."--Steve Gregg

Let me stop you right there. More like five women, Steve.

"Most women would rather work for men because they are treated better."--Steve Gregg

Because we are always opening doors for them and telling them how pretty they are. Seriously, what is their problem?

Dude, you know women better than they know themselves. If only all men were like you instead of the namby-pamby liberals who let the women walk all over them, the world would be such a better place.

David Jackson

Speaking of, as soon as I saw 2 responses it wasn’t a long shot to guess who it was…

Hey Rob, I hate to break it to you there chief but “straight white guys” have more in common with women and minorities than the politically connected and the super rich, who may be mostly white, but do NOT even remotely represent the vast majority of straight white men in America. Your statement that it’s “straight white guys” with all this so called social privilege, running unfair institutions, and perpetuating bigotry shows your true prejudice Rob Stone. Your sarcastic pontificating response displays, both in your indoctrinated victimhood philosophy, and its accompanying race/gender baiting argument, your extreme political bias.

You know maybe Steve wouldn’t think that way if homosexual, I mean gay, I mean qu*er, I mean whatever’s the accepted term is this week, people didn’t decide to be offended by a word that was perfectly acceptable last week? Maybe Steve wouldn’t think that way if race, gender, and sexual orientation based “communities” considered themselves a part of the greater community (you know…Americans) first and their race, gender, or sexual orientation, second? Maybe Steve wouldn’t think that way if when people said false accusers of rape are criminals just like rapists and women should watch out for themselves because there are attackers out there; said people weren’t demonized as “rape apologists” by ISU’s feminists. Maybe Steve wouldn’t think that way if feminists didn’t have to skew the data on incomes (ignoring chosen profession, years on the job, time taken off, etc.) in order to argue that women still make less than men. But what all these people do if they couldn’t claim they were held back by the privileged, white, heterosexual, male, and his bigoted hegemonic society? Take responsibility for their own life?

Maybe people wouldn’t look down on feminism if feminists didn’t disingenuously claim that feminism is all about equality of the sexes when they openly bemoan masculinity, refuse to acknowledge its biological roots, and deceitfully claim it’s only a socially constructed characteristic that is centered on a belief in female inferiority. So they don’t “hate” men they just hate who we are inside while arrogantly claiming it’s not who we “really” are inside but how we are brainwashed to behave by a misogynist social construct. Perhaps if they acknowledged the physiological differences between men and women and said differences functions in encouraging gender roles, instead of irrationally and erroneously claiming the differences in gender are nurture not nature, they would get somewhere.

But what would I know right? I’m just another privileged white male, blind to the plight of women, minorities, and the LGTBQA communities from my privileged world perspective. You have no idea what my life story is, what socioeconomic condition I was born into, what family situation I was born into, what medical conditions I did or did not have, what I did or did not have to do for myself, my family, or others throughout my life, or anything else, but you somehow know the playing field was sloped in my favor? I’m “privileged” simply because society gave everything to me due to my white skin color, facial hair, muscles, a cock and balls between my legs, and my sexual attraction to women? If you want an accurate example of bigoted, your assertion of privilege does a good job of it.

Rob Stone

Oh, good. David is jumping in to attack me and defend his sexist friend. Again.

"Maybe people wouldn’t look down on feminism"--David Jackson

The only people who look down on feminism are sexists.

Feminism is an ideology aimed at equal treatment. Looking down on equal treatment is bigotry.

"But what would I know right? I’m just another privileged white male, blind to the plight of women, minorities, and the LGTBQA communities from my privileged world perspective."--David Jackson

Admitting your problem is the first step to fixing it.

“You have no idea what my life story is . . . but you somehow know the playing field was sloped in my favor? I’m “privileged” . . . If you want an accurate example of bigoted, your assertion of privilege does a good job of it.”—David Jackson

I never mentioned either you or privilege. If you want an accurate example of a defensive, craven, and unprovoked ad hominem, your false accusation does a good job of it.

David Jackson

Lol! Another name calling response from you Rob, another claim without even a hint evidence, and yet another response without so much as an attempt to refute the points made against you. If my claim is so false it should be no problem for you to prove it so. So why have you failed to do it yet again Rob?

I’m going to go ahead and say it’s because you know you’re wrong and it’s easier to label someone guilty of “bigotry” than to face the facts you can’t dispute. Losing the argument? Cry bigotry and attempt to shame the opposition into backing down!!!

Rob Stone

Seriously, I'm done taking the bait. I will address this and then not play into these petty, dishonest attempts to bully any longer.

"Lol! Another name calling response from you Rob, another claim without even a hint evidence"--David Jackson

I didn't call you any names. I called Steve a sexist because he is IN MY OPINION.

Apart from that, I don't know what "claim" I need to provide "evidence" for.

That feminism is an ideology? Do you want evidence of that? That feminism is an ideolgy that seeks equal treatment? Do you want evidence of that? You need to be clear rather than just hurl out some general accusation and then blame me because I don't know what the heck you are talking about.

I don't need evidence for my opinion because my opinion is that belittling feminists, like you and Steve have done IN MY OPINION, is sexist.

There, I just called you a sexist. You win.

"and yet another response without so much as an attempt to refute the points made against you."

I'm not interested in your so-called "points." I disagree with your opinions because they are based on a right-wing political ideology that refuses to acknowledge any bias, bigotry, prejudice, or injustices historically levied on women by men. Your "points" consist of defending Steve's sexist banter, mocking gay people ("I mean gay, I mean qu*er, I mean whatever's [sic.] the accepted term is this week"), lying about facts with NO EVIDENCE ("if feminists didn't have to skew data on incomes"), and demeaning those who are concerned for injustices ("But what all these people do if they couldn’t claim they were held back by the privileged, white, heterosexual, male, and his bigoted hegemonic society?").

Furthermore, your points are based on pure ingornace and generalities:
"Maybe people wouldn’t look down on feminism if feminists didn’t disingenuously claim that feminism is all about equality of the sexes when they openly bemoan masculinity"--Sweeping generalization with NO EVIDENCE that that is all they do
"refuse to acknowledge its biological roots"--No idea what that means. Because men and women are biologically different that means women should not be treated equally?
"and deceitfully claim it’s only a socially constructed characteristic that is centered on a belief in female inferiority."--NO EVIDENCE that such a claim is deceitful, especiallly since you don't even define the social construct you decry.

" If my claim is so false it should be no problem for you to prove it so. So why have you failed to do it yet again Rob? "--David Jackson

And, by this point I am bored because your post was a repetitive, predictable diatribe full of dishonest tripe. You then have the GALL to accuse me of "no evidence" when your post is full of BS claims with NO EVIDENCE.

"I’m going to go ahead and say it’s because you know you’re wrong and it’s easier to label someone guilty of “bigotry” than to face the facts you can’t dispute."--David Jackson

You are free to say all you want, even it if is BS.

"Cry bigotry and attempt to shame the opposition into backing down!!!"--David Jackson

I know you would never back down from your bigotry. For some reason you are proud of it.

Until you have something civil to say, don't expect a response from me.

So go ahead and accuse me of "running away." Seriously, I'm just bored of your attempts to belittle and bully instead of engaging in honest, critical discourse.

David Jackson

“I didn't call you any names.”
-Rob Stone

You called me sexist. Please review your own posts before lying in your responses.

“That feminism is an ideology? Do you want evidence of that? That feminism is an ideolgy that seeks equal treatment? Do you want evidence of that? You need to be clear rather than just hurl out some general accusation and then blame me because I don't know what the heck you are talking about.”
-Ron Stone

It was written plainly so I don’t know what you need to be clear but in short, yes. Yes the statement that feminism is an ideology that seeks equal treatment needs evidence.

“I'm not interested in your so-called "points." Furthermore, your points are based on pure ingornace and generalities:”
-Rob Stone

Really? Prove it.

“NO EVIDENCE, NO EVIDNECE, NO EVIDENCE!... that such a claim is deceitful, especiallly since you don't even define the social construct you decry.” “… mocking gay people…” “right-wing political ideology that refuses to acknowledge any bias, bigotry, prejudice, or injustices historically levied on women by men” “…and demeaning those who are concerned for injustices.”
-Rob Stone

First, do I have to prove the sky is blue to have a conversation with you too? The Feminist goal of dismantling gender roles is central. I didn’t decry the social construct I DID define, it was masculinity. As for the evidence you request; feminist theory claims masculinity stresses certain values and uses these values to win and dominate social power, oppressing women.
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1149&context=artspapers
http://www.nomas.org/node/122

I didn’t, nor have I ever “mocked” gay people. I do mock those (of any background) who wish to prolong the social popularity of pity for their social group and promote prolonged division between their said group and society because they want to continue to feel sorry for themselves. We will never all get along if people invent things to become offended at.

Feminist pay gap claim:
Women are again being oppressed by an unjust male dominated society as they only make .77 cents for every dollar a man earns.

Pay Facts:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/

"You then have the GALL to accuse me of "no evidence" when your post is full of BS claims with NO EVIDENCE.”
-Rob Stone

BS claims, that are fairly straight forward, which you offered no counter points to. Again.

“I know you would never back down from your bigotry. For some reason you are proud of it.”
-Rob Stone

Believing in equality of opportunity and not forced equity or outcome is not bigotry Rob. But thanks for continuing the honest critical discourse.

“Because men and women are biologically different that means women should not be treated equally?”
-Rob Stone

No Rob, and your typical tricks of gender baiting are getting old. Women and Men are equal (or should be) under the law. They have equal opportunity. However, it should not be attempted to legislate the neutrality of their natural differences to achieve forced equity.


“Until you have something civil to say, don't expect a response from me.”
“So go ahead and accuse me of "running away." Seriously, I'm just bored of your attempts to belittle and bully instead of engaging in honest, critical discourse.”
-Rob Stone

Says the guy hurling out accusations of being “sexist” on anyone who disagrees with him. If honest and critical discourse is what you expect I suggest not posting sarcastic name calling responses in the future.

Rob Stone

"You called me sexist. Please review your own posts before lying in your responses."--David Jackson

Yes, I did. But I did that AFTER you accused me of calling you names. You accused me of calling you names BEFORE I called you sexist.

Furthermore, calling you sexist isn't a name. It's a descriptive term referring to your behavior.

"Yes the statement that feminism is an ideology that seeks equal treatment needs evidence."--David Jackson

I thought you already thought you knew what it meant.
Here you go: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/

"Really? Prove it."--David Jackson

I did. Please read before making a demand that has already been addressed. Stop pretending I do, or don't do, things simply because we disagree on something.

"First, do I have to prove the sky is blue to have a conversation with you too?"--David Jackson

No. But don't demand that I provide evidence that the sky is blue if you don't have to do the same.

And I think it is pathetic that the only evidence you supply is for ideas that are already obvious and accepted and that I already agree with. You FAIL to supply any evidence for your false claims. What a hack.

"I didn’t, nor have I ever “mocked” gay people."--David Jackson

BS. Example already provided.

"BS claims, that are fairly straight forward, which you offered no counter points to."--David Jackson

Thanks for admitting they are BS. And the counter points are already on the table! You claim there is no pay gap. THERE IS (that is an example of a counter point). Evidence: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-14/business/38537480_1_pay-gap-minority-women-hispanic-women
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/women-and-equal-pay-wage-gap_n_3038806.html

Counter pointing your links:

CBS: an opinion piece that dances around the issue by pointing out possible reasons for income gap (ignoring that women are paid less, on average, than men for the same jobs and that women are denied the same amount of opportunities that men are). The "myths" come from a Marty Nemko who actually thinks that our economy is biased against men. Rebuttal:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/why-the-us-economy-is-not-biased-against-men/256166/

WSJ: Another opinion piece by a conservative based on selectively skewing which numbers to examine and which studies to look at (even though the main study is one that only looks at one demographic).

Forbes: Written by the same woman who wrote the WSJ piece.

"Believing in equality of opportunity and not forced equity or outcome is not bigotry Rob."--David Jackson

That's true. But what is bigotry is blaming, demeaning, and mocking women, like Steve did and what you defended. A defender of bigotry is a bigot.

"Women and Men are equal (or should be) under the law. They have equal opportunity."--David Jackson

But women are not always afforded equal opportunity. Many women are denied considerations because they could become pregnant or for other reasons.
It is also true that many occupations that are more oriented to men pay more than those more oriented to women. The pay gap differs among occupations.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-15-12.cfm
http://www.civilrights.org/equal-opportunity/fact-sheets/women.html
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2013/04/09/59698/the-gender-wage-gap-differs-by-occupation/
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/wage-gap-worsened-2012-women-can-expect-lose-443k-over-entire-career
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/09/1842001/the-10-jobs-with-the-biggest-gender-wage-gap/?mobile=nc#

It was only just recently that women could be allowed to serve in military combat.

"Says the guy hurling out accusations of being “sexist” on anyone who disagrees with him."--David Jackson

I hurl out accusations of sexism, not because you disagree, but because you defend sexism.

Rather than deny that SOME men are sexist and deny SOME women equal opportunity and treatment, why not decry those people? It's like claiming there is no racism even though there clearly is. It's like claiming there is no homophobia even though there clearly is.

You say that sexism is wrong but you refuse to acknowledge obvious instances of sexism. You say that sexism is wrong but you defend sexists. The fact is that there are straight, white men who are bigots (and most who are not). I'm straight and white and male but I have no problem admitting that many other straight, white males are bigots.

David Jackson

“Yes, I did. But I did that AFTER you accused me of calling you names. You accused me of calling you names BEFORE I called you sexist. Furthermore, calling you sexist isn't a name. It's a descriptive term referring to your behavior.”

-Rob Stone

Rob you indirectly referred to me as sexist in your first reply due to my statements regarding feminism. “The only people who look down on feminism are sexists.” –Rob Stone 11:02 May 9th. If due to my statements you weren’t referring to me, I’ll apologize for labeling you a liar but given your response it seemed clear what you were referring to. Furthermore, many names are descriptive terms referring to a behavior, the difference is when the behavior observed doesn’t match the behavior the defining the name.

“I thought you already thought you knew what it meant.
Here you go: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/”
-Rob Stone

From the source you provided: “However, there are many different kinds of feminism. Feminists disagree about what sexism consists in, and what exactly ought to be done about it; they disagree about what it means to be a woman or a man and what social and political implications gender has or should have.”
So while we are talking about why feminism gets a bad rap or why some look down on it, perhaps when you attempt to prove it all stands for equal treatment you could provide evidence of its tactics and successes. But, if you tried that you would have found the extremist, anti-male, nut jobs drowning out any good intentioned attempts and then lost the argument about feminism as a whole. Rob, the “all we want is equality” is a good political front that is only truly desired by a few moderates and it not representative of the following as a hole. Unless you define equality as socially castrating men to make them easier to compete with in male dominated areas and thus more “equal”.

"Really? Prove it."--David Jackson
“I did. Please read before making a demand that has already been addressed. Stop pretending I do, or don't do, things simply because we disagree on something.”
-Rob Stone

You didn’t even directly address the points I made with any counter points or evidence showing how I was wrong. So how pray tell did you prove my points are based on “pure ignorance and generalities”?

“And I think it is pathetic that the only evidence you supply is for ideas that are already obvious and accepted and that I already agree with. You FAIL to supply any evidence for your false claims. What a hack.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, no Rob a hack is what someone is when they reply to a claim with supporting evidence with dismissing remarks that fail to outline why and how you disagree. Like that statement from you.

“BS. Example already provided.”
-Rob Stone

Back to lying, take a deep breath and review what I said.

“Thanks for admitting they are BS”
-Rob Stone

That was sarcasm. Good job picking up on it…

“And the counter points are already on the table! You claim there is no pay gap. THERE IS (that is an example of a counter point). Evidence: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-14/business/38537480_1_pay-gap-minority-women-hispanic-women
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/women-and-equal-pay-wage-gap_n_3038806.html”
-Rob Stone

NOTHING in that provides data showing women who work the same job, with the same degree, for the same number of years, for the same hours, with the same time taken off, as men, are paid less than men and thus sexism or discrimination is present. Nothing! So what the hell is that proving Rob???

“CBS: an opinion piece that dances around the issue by pointing out possible reasons for income gap (ignoring that women are paid less, on average, than men for the same jobs and that women are denied the same amount of opportunities that men are).”
-Rob Stone

Really Rob? What data shows women are being paid less, on average, than men for the same jobs for the same number of years, with the same degree, for the same hours, with the same time taken off, as men? Hmm? Still waiting for those numbers. Still waiting for proof of discrimination.

“The "myths" come from a Marty Nemko who actually thinks that our economy is biased against men. Rebuttal: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/why-the-us-economy-is-not-biased-against-men/256166/”
-Rob Stone

Yup, still waiting for the data that shows women are being paid less, on average, than men for the same jobs for the same number of years, with the same degree, for the same hours, with the same time taken off, as men. The GAO report mentioned in this article would not open. But even in the article it stated that one study only subtracted industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure as factors, and did not take into account hours worked and time off. It also only concluded, "We were not able to explain the remaining earnings difference." Only the possibility of discrimination, and no numbers to support it. Hmm? Still waiting for those numbers. Still waiting for proof of discrimination.


“That's true. But what is bigotry is blaming, demeaning, and mocking women, like Steve did and what you defended. A defender of bigotry is a bigot.”
-Rob Stone

Holy hell, another lie. Go back and re-read what Steve posted and what I responded to you with. If all you are going to do is make false accusations you many was well just come out and say you’re a biased hack.

“It is also true that many occupations that are more oriented to men pay more than those more oriented to women. The pay gap differs among occupations.
-Rob Stone

Does that prove discrimination? Are there those actively denying women positions in theses fields specifically of their sex ALONE?

“It was only just recently that women could be allowed to serve in military combat.”
-Rob Stone

God forbid combat readiness actually outweighs individual opportunity in the armed forces. First of all they are still barred from Combat Arms MOS positions like Infantry, Armor, and SpecOps, they are only allowed into support MOSs in combat units at the Battalion level or below now. Second, they discriminate for all sorts of reasons other than sex to maintain the proper physical specimens in ground combat jobs. Height, weight, IQ, being handicap, etc. They all are qualifiers/disqualifiers, although the average grunt doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist. You are there to serve your country no t get to do whatever the hell you want to, and the service (note it’s purpose is for you to serve not get served) is a weapon protecting our society not a inclusive part of our society.

“I hurl out accusations of sexism, not because you disagree, but because you defend sexism.”
-Rob Stone

Which is a baseless lie.

“Rather than deny that SOME men are sexist and deny SOME women equal opportunity and treatment, why not decry those people? It's like claiming there is no racism even though there clearly is. It's like claiming there is no homophobia even though there clearly is.”
-Rob Stone

I never said their want any sexism. I stated it is claimed to be found in places it isn’t to incite support for political purposes. I in no way refuse to acknowledge instances of sexism or defend sexists. You want to claim I do to push your politics.

Steve Gregg

Thanks for the enthusiastic defense, David. Don't worry about Rob calling you a sexist. To lefties, everyone who disagrees with them is a sexist or racist or a Nazi or a liar or maybe all four. That's all they got: name-calling. If you go through his rebuttals, they are all just weenie sniping about deviating from the PC view. There is no substance.

Boiled down, the argument of Rob and his liberal tribe is always: Our tribe is the best! The Other is evil!

Their name-calling only has the power you give it.

Rob Stone

"Rob you indirectly referred to me as sexist in your first reply due to my statements regarding feminism."--David Jackson

That's not calling names. A hypothetical example of name-calling would be, "You are a sexist pig." Indirect descriptions are not examples of name-calling. And I did not directly or indirectly refer to you in that post.

"perhaps when you attempt to prove it all stands for equal treatment you could provide evidence of its tactics and successes"--David Jackson

I don't recall ever claiming that "it ALL stands for equal treatment." I wonder why it is okay for you to lump all of feminism into one category but not me?

"You didn’t even directly address the points I made with any counter points or evidence showing how I was wrong."--David Jackson

I directly addressed the points to show how I DISAGREED with you since I responded to your opinions.

"NOTHING in that provides data showing women who work the same job, with the same degree, for the same number of years, for the same hours, with the same time taken off, as men, are paid less than men and thus sexism or discrimination is present."--David Jackson

Because your criteria is not the scope of the study! You can't criticize a study because it doesn't abide by your criteria! That's exactly what HACKERY is!

It's based on averages. Not all men make the same salary either. Do you not get how such studies are conducted and what, exactly, they study? Apparently not.

And thanks for completely avoiding the counter points I made with straw men.

"Go back and re-read what Steve posted and what I responded to you with."--David Jackson

I did. He wrote a bigoted, sexist commentary and you defended him. Do you deny that you defended his commentary?

"Does that prove discrimination? Are there those actively denying women positions in theses fields specifically of their sex ALONE?"--David Jackson

You aren't understanding. I'll try again. Some occupations that are more oriented to men pay more than those oriented to women. That's often because of discrimination and it's historical.

"God forbid combat readiness actually outweighs individual opportunity in the armed forces."--David Jackson

More defense of sexism. If a woman is as qualified to do what a man could do (tall enough, heavy enough, etc.), then why shouldn't she be able to do it? Either in the military or not?

"“I hurl out accusations of sexism, not because you disagree, but because you defend sexism.”
-Rob Stone "Which is a baseless lie."--David Jackson

It's full of base. For example, you wrote: "Second, they discriminate for all sorts of reasons other than sex to maintain the proper physical specimens in ground combat jobs." So you agree that sex is one reason for discrimination and you agree with it. You agree that sex is not a proper physical condition for ground combat, as if every woman had the same physical condition.

"I never said their want any sexism."--David Jackson

But you refuse to acknowledge it.
________________

"Our tribe is the best! The Other is evil!"--Steve Gregg

Pot calling kettle black (even though the kettle isn't quite so black). Incredible.

David Jackson

“Because your criteria is not the scope of the study! You can't criticize a study because it doesn't abide by your criteria! That's exactly what HACKERY is!”
-Rob Stone

Um, no, that’s the definition of discrimination. If that criterion is not the scope of the study, than that study is null in determining whether or not there is discrimination, and your posting it is “hackery”. This argument started over my assertion of feminists skewing numbers to show a sexist pay gap affecting women. If there is no discrimination, there is no anti-woman bias. Case closed.

“You aren't understanding. I'll try again. Some occupations that are more oriented to men pay more than those oriented to women. That's often because of discrimination and it's historical.”
-Rob Stone

Oh, I’m understanding. There is no evidence of discrimination. Where is this “historical discrimination” you claim? If nobody is telling women they can’t do it because they are women there is no gender/sex based pay gap to talk about. Regardless of perceived tradition if free choice is the decisive issue here this discussion is done.

“More defense of sexism. If a woman is as qualified to do what a man could do (tall enough, heavy enough, etc.), then why shouldn't she be able to do it? Either in the military or not?”
-Rob Stone

Not to get into what could no doubt be a very long related debate on women in combat... philosophically speaking, no reason. Practically speaking, several. The armed forces are bureaucratic organizations that are structured and function based upon generalizations. There are also monetary issues when it comes to training. If 60-90% of males can be trained in the time available to physically be an asset to a ground combat unit (carry the heaviest unconscious guy in the patrol) but only 10-20% of females can, it is a waste of time and resources to train women for a job the vast majority of them cannot do to standard. Even if instances of individual capability would warrant some women. Same arguments could be made about dwarfs of any sex. This on top of the logistics issues of living environments and medical support for mixed sex units. Unit readiness is also a significant issue due to the sexual interactions of most 17-25 year old junior Soldiers or Marines.

“So you agree that sex is one reason for discrimination and you agree with it. You agree that sex is not a proper physical condition for ground combat, as if every woman had the same physical condition.”
-Rob Stone

I also argued that the military is a weapon protecting our society NOT an inclusive part of our society. Unless pay for ground combat MOSs in the military is a measurable part of the overall pay disparity between men and women those links you posted show, it has nothing to do with our argument. I will freely admit that as far as the armed forces go, as long as mass formation training is how this country fields ground combat troops, I will support discrimination based upon generalized capability in the military. If that makes me sexist, I guess your claim sticks, but since the military is not part of our free and open society I maintain it isn’t. And IF that’s bigoted it also makes be a prejudice against dwarfs, amputees, para and quadriplegics, those affected by severe birth defects, and the mentally handicapped. All of which are barred from ground combat MOSs or the military in general, regardless of some of them being so called “protected classes”.

Steve, you just may be right. Lots of name calling, not a lot of facts.

Rob Stone

"If that criterion is not the scope of the study, than that study is null in determining whether or not there is discrimination"--David Jackson

That isn't how studies work, David. A study lays out its scope and then the results speak to the scope of the study. You can't condemn a study for doing what it set out to do. If you can find flaws in the methodology or the data, then have at it. But don't try to prove your point by pointing to a study that didn't study what you wanted it to.

You are essentially criticizing things that don't tell you what you want to be told (aka, reality).

"This argument started over my assertion of feminists skewing numbers to show a sexist pay gap affecting women."--David Jackson

I know. And you haven't shown any proof of "feminists skewing numbers." There are credible studies (not conducted by feminists) that show that there is a pay gap. What you cited were conservative opinions based on cherry-picked data rather than objective studies.

"There is no evidence of discrimination. Where is this “historical discrimination” you claim?"--David Jackson

Just the obvious. Industries that began as predominately male (banking, doctors, lawyers) pay more than industries that began as predominately female (teaching, housekeeping, nursing). Note how male-dominated professions generate money while female dominated ones do not.

Are you seriously denying that there has been historical discrimination against women? Who wrote most of the laws? Who designed the capitalist system?

"I will support discrimination based upon generalized capability in the military."--David Jackson

I rest my case.

"And IF that’s bigoted it also makes be a prejudice against dwarfs, amputees, para and quadriplegics, those affected by severe birth defects, and the mentally handicapped."--David Jackson

Oh no. You've just compared women to dwarfs, amputees, the mentally handicapped, etc. You have no idea what sexism and bigotry are! Absolutely incredible.

"Steve, you just may be right. Lots of name calling, not a lot of facts."--David Jackson

Oh, stop whining. You can clearly dish it out but can't take it.

David Jackson

“You can't condemn a study for doing what it set out to do. If you can find flaws in the methodology or the data, then have at it. But don't try to prove your point by pointing to a study that didn't study what you wanted it to.You are essentially criticizing things that don't tell you what you want to be told (aka, reality).”
-Rob Stone

Wow Rob. I know how studies work, do you? No, I can't condemn a study for doing what it set out to do, but I can condemn you for using a study with a scope that fails to include data relevant to the argument. That’s what I did, don’t try and throw it back on me now. The reality is feminists, and you, want to whine about a “pay gap” when it’s really the “what type of job you go after and how much time off you take” pay gap.

I know. And you haven't shown any proof of "feminists skewing numbers."
-Rob Stone

The proof is that women are not being discriminated against in the workplace for their pay. Again, when they post studies like you, that show women making less even though as you pointed out the scope of the studies cited didn’t compare the differences based on sex alone with all other factors being equal, they are telling people women are unjustly making less when there is no injustice. The true numbers don’t show any discrimination. Still waiting for them or you to show otherwise.

“There are credible studies (not conducted by feminists) that show that there is a pay gap. What you cited were conservative opinions based on cherry-picked data rather than objective studies.”
-Rob Stone

A pay gap based on discrimination towards women? A pay gap that shows women who work the same job, with the same degree, for the same number of years, for the same hours, with the same time taken off, as men, are paid less than men and thus sexism or discrimination is present? Post it because I’ve been asking for that one for days now.

“Just the obvious. Industries that began as predominately male (banking, doctors, lawyers) pay more than industries that began as predominately female (teaching, housekeeping, nursing). Note how male-dominated professions generate money while female dominated ones do not.”
-Rob Stone

Oh it’s just “obvious” you don’t have to show that there is any discrimination…please. What they began as is not what they are now. What’s keeping women out of those careers now? Note how this is not 1883 it’s 2013. Sorry but you, feminists, and other professional whiners are running out of excuses quick.

“Are you seriously denying that there has been historical discrimination against women?”
-Rob Stone

No, are you seriously denying this is the 21st century? If you want to claim unfairness you need to claim it in the present.

“Who wrote most of the laws?”
-Rob Stone

Lawyers

“Who designed the capitalist system?”
-Rob Stone

People who believe in working for a living.

“I rest my case.”
-Rob Stone

Since jobs in the military, and combat forces capability, are not directly part of or affecting private society, I’m not quite sure what case you are resting but whatever man.

“Oh no. You've just compared women to dwarfs, amputees, the mentally handicapped, etc. You have no idea what sexism and bigotry are! Absolutely incredible.”
-Rob Stone

Sorry my oversensitive friend but in combat there are only assets and liabilities, anyone who says otherwise may have been overseas but they never saw real combat. It knows no sensitivities or PC bullsh*t. When it comes to carrying an unconscious 200lb soldier wearing another 55lbs of ammo, water, and armor, in 130 degree weather, across hundreds of meters of grape rows, trenches, and compound walls, before the Taliban cell that shot him lines their sights up on you or other members of the patrol moving to the medevac site, guess what Rob? There is no sexism or bigotry; there are just those who can do it and those who get sent back, or their fellow soldier sent back, to their families in black plastic f@cking bags. Statistically speaking there is about the same percentage of women as there are dwarfs, amputees, and handicapped people, that could be trained to do it. Some could, most cant, and the military trains on generalities.

Get over your emotional, reactionary, get offended first and think about the facts later BS. What’s absolutely incredible is you are more concerned about people’s feelings of being treated unfairly, or if people are offended at blunt facts, than if people are capable of doing their damn job in a profession where the consequences for failure is death, or being maimed for life.

I have an idea, how about instead of just whining about what’s not fair, sexist, and bigoted, you propose a solution that works!? Obviously guys like me are sexist bigots. So how about you describe how you would structure a “socially just” military ground combat unit (Infantry, Armor, Special Forces) where everyone and anyone could join. Couple stipulations; you 1) cannot erode readiness or capability, and 2) cannot raise the budget (both at home training and wartime spending overseas) from what it is now to make it happen. Lets here your forward thinking and obviously experience thoughts on this!

“Oh, stop whining. You can clearly dish it out but can't take it.”
-Rob Stone

I can take plenty. I do like the talking though line from you though.

Steve Gregg

Rob Stone,

You have not rebutted my points, merely flung out insults because I dissent from the unexamined politically correct positions you hold as sacred.

For example, you make no substantial rebuttal that women earn less because they choose different jobs and put in fewer hours on the job.

Here's a nice chart that illustrates that both men and women get identical salary increases of 60% until age 30, when the women start having children:

http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap

So if women are discriminated against in the workplace, why doesn't it happen in their twenties?

Women also tend to choose different jobs than men. Men tend to be the primary earner in a family and consequently go for the high-paying jobs. Of course, part of that is due to the fact that women prefer to marry men who earn a lot. Women, by contrast, tend to choose jobs that are portable and flexible, like nurse, teacher, and HR administrator. You can travel anywhere with your husband and plug right into one of those jobs.

Men also tend to take more risky outdoor jobs while women pick safer indoor jobs. That's why women outlive men. They have easier, safer lives.
You don't see many women working in coal mines, steel mills, or oil rigs, jobs that pay more but are rough work.

Women also earn less because they don't work 40 hour weeks, but rather 35 hour weeks. They take a lot of sick leave, usually to tend to their children. By contrast, men may be working 55 hour weeks and travelling.

Warren Farrell, author of "Why Men Earn More" and former member of the Board of the National Organization for Women in New York points out that "People who work 44 hours per week make 50 percent more than people who work 34 hours a week." Simply put, married women with kids avoid overtime.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/07/behind-numbers-why-do-women-earn-less-than-men/

If women got paid less for the same work, every employer would be hiring them to work at a discount. Women would be preferred over men because for business cost is the bottom line. Yet, in the real world, no such preference exists because women are paid what they are worth.

In fact, any woman who makes the same choices as her male contemporaries earns the same pay. However, most women seek promotion to Mother.

However, liberals like Rob Stone focus on the single dimension of gender, as if that is the only variable that matters when it comes to hiring and salary. They demand the genders get the same pay whether the women work as long and hard as men or not. What a sexist demand!

Rob Stone

"No, I can't condemn a study for doing what it set out to do, but I can condemn you for using a study with a scope that fails to include data relevant to the argument."--David Jackson

Your definition of "relevant to the argument" is anything that doesn't tell you what you want to hear.

"Post it because I’ve been asking for that one for days now."--David Jackson

Okay, I did your work for you again. Since you can't provide evidence to back your own points (probably because it doesn't exist), I found evidence that takes all your criteria into account.

This study takes provides data showing women who work in the same job, with the same degree, for the same number of years, for the same hours, with the same time taken off, as men, are paid less by about 5% and that gender is the only distinguishing factor:

"An analysis of weekly earnings one year after graduation was examined as a function of full-time employees’ characteristics, including job and workplace, employment experience and continuity, education and training, and demographic and personal characteristics.

If a woman and a man make the same choices, will they receive the same pay? The answer is no. The evidence shows that even when the “explanations” for the pay gap are included in a regression, they cannot fully explain the pay disparity. The regressions for earnings one year after college indicate that when all variables are included, about one quarter of the pay gap is attributable to gender. That is, after controlling for all the factors known to affect earnings, college-educated women earn about 5 percent less than college-educated men earn. Thus, while discrimination cannot be measured directly, it is reasonable to assume that this pay gap is the product of gender discrimination.
http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/Behind-the-Pay-Gap.pdf

This report, generated by a joing Congressional committee, is backed by several studies and reveals more gaps than simply wage earnings but also in benefits:
http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=9118a9ef-0771-4777-9c1f-8232fe70a45c

"The proof is that women are not being discriminated against in the workplace for their pay."--David Jackson

You haven't proved it. I, on the other hand, have provided credible studies of discrimination. Stop making claims of fact that you back with your own opinion rather than evidence.

"Oh it’s just “obvious” you don’t have to show that there is any discrimination"--David Jackson

I'll do what you do: Prove there is not any discrimination. I want a study that proves that women are treated equally in every way.

"No, are you seriously denying this is the 21st century?"--David Jackson

No, are you seriously denying that discrimination no longer exists? PROVE IT!

"“Who wrote most of the laws?” -Rob Stone
"Lawyers"--David Jackson

Gender of those lawyers?

“Who designed the capitalist system?”-Rob Stone
"People who believe in working for a living."--David Jackson

Your obvious evasion is telling enough that you want to avoid admitting what everyone has known for centuries.

"Sorry my oversensitive friend but in combat there are only assets and liabilities, anyone who says otherwise may have been overseas but they never saw real combat."--David Jackson

You are ignoring the point. Women should have EQUAL OPPORTUNITY in the military or not. If a person can prove they are qualified then their gender or sex should not matter.

Why should a skinny guy get an opportunity/consideration that a bulky women could not?

"There is no sexism or bigotry; there are just those who can do it and those who get sent back, or their fellow soldier sent back, to their families in black plastic f@cking bags."--David Jackson

I still don't know why there should be unequal opportunity between men and women.

"Statistically speaking there is about the same percentage of women as there are dwarfs, amputees, and handicapped people, that could be trained to do it."--David Jackson

At least you no longer hide your offensive bigotry.

"I have an idea, how about instead of just whining about what’s not fair, sexist, and bigoted, you propose a solution that works!?"--David Jackson

Okay. Here goes: everyone treat everyone else with equal opportunity, including equal opportunities for rewards and punishments. Everyone has the same opportunity to qualify for all positions.

"Obviously guys like me are sexist bigots."--David Jackson

It is quite obvious. But you should get over your emotional, reactionary whining and become a better person.
______________
"So if women are discriminated against in the workplace, why doesn't it happen in their twenties?"--Steve Gregg

It does. See the study I posted above.

"Men also tend to take more risky outdoor jobs while women pick safer indoor jobs. That's why women outlive men."--Steve Gregg

That explains it. I mean, it's not like there are any physiological differences:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1827162,00.html
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/350211
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-women-live-longer

"They have easier, safer lives."--Steve Gregg

Yes. If only they didn't have to give birth....what luxury!

"If women got paid less for the same work, every employer would be hiring them to work at a discount."--Steve Gregg

That would be rock hard logic except for the fact that it is illegal.

"However, most women seek promotion to Mother."--Steve Gregg

And, as we all know, mother pays more than father.

"However, liberals like Rob Stone focus on the single dimension of gender, as if that is the only variable that matters when it comes to hiring and salary. They demand the genders get the same pay whether the women work as long and hard as men or not. What a sexist demand!"--Steve Gregg

However, right-wingers like Steve Gregg lie about what those in favor of equal pay for equal work want (by ignoring the equal part). They insist that the problem is with those who want equality rather than with those who refuse to treat people equally. What a sexist demand!

David Jackson

“Your definition of "relevant to the argument" is anything that doesn't tell you what you want to hear.”
-Rob Stone

Another baseless attack attempting to hide the lack of reason in your argument.

“Okay, I did your work for you again. Since you can't provide evidence to back your own points (probably because it doesn't exist), I found evidence that takes all your criteria into account.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, my work? Do you know what burden of proof is Rob? I claimed that feminists “skew the numbers” to argue there is injustice and discrimination towards women’s pay. I then state that this includes holding up studies and statistics that do not take into account all the relevant factors, and you actually help me prove this by posting some of those studies that failed to show discrimination based upon sex.

The burden of proof is on you, and any feminist who wants to make the same argument; that any “pay gap” is based on a bias against women.

“Thus, while discrimination cannot be measured directly, it is reasonable to assume that this pay gap is the product of gender discrimination.”
http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/Behind-the-Pay-Gap.pdf
-Rob Stone

Really? That’s funny because when asked how much of the gap is attributable to discrimination AAUW spokeswoman Lisa Maatz said herself in an NPR interview, "We are still trying to figure that out."
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2012/10/24/28990/study-one-year-out-of-college-women-earn-only-82-p/

That AAUW report you cited also notes that part of the 6.6-cent wage-gap may be owed to women’s, in general, purportedly “inferior negotiating skills” and not unscrupulous or discriminating employers. That's from your own source Rob!

“This report, generated by a joing Congressional committee, is backed by several studies and reveals more gaps than simply wage earnings but also in benefits:
http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=9118a9ef-0771-4777-9c1f-8232fe70a45c”
-Rob Stone

This study, prepared by the Majority Staff of the Joint Economic Committee, did not prove that women are being denied benefits that men receive solely because they are women and employers discriminate against them. But keep throwing anything you can find at me because quantity outweighs quality in your understanding of argument.

“You haven't proved it. I, on the other hand, have provided credible studies of discrimination. Stop making claims of fact that you back with your own opinion rather than evidence.”
-Rob Stone

You provide ONE “credible” study and it did not prove discrimination by the admission of one of the leaders of the organization who published it! You said something about being a hack? Not only that but regardless of being accepted as “credible” by your side of the argument the study does have some significant flaws:
For example, its counted "social science" as one college major and reported that, among such majors, women earned only 83 percent of what men earned. That sounds unfair until you consider that "social science" includes both economics and sociology majors. Economics majors (66 percent male) have a median income of $70,000; for sociology majors (68 percent female) it is $40,000. Economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute has pointed to similar incongruities. The AAUW study classifies jobs like librarian, lawyer, professional athlete, and "media occupations" under a single rubric--"other white collar." In other words the report compares the pay of male lawyers with that of female librarians; of male athletes with that of female communications assistants. That's not a comparison between people who do the same work.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html
http://washingtonexaminer.com/bogus-aauw-study-perpetuates-wage-gap-myths/article/2512127

Oh by the way. There are also credible studies that show that the pay gap may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers.
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

“No, are you seriously denying that discrimination no longer exists? PROVE IT!”
-Rob Stone

That measurable discrimination against women simply because they are women no longer exists? I did, see above.

“Gender of those lawyers?”
-Rob Stone

Their gender is more important to determining discrimination than their position in society!? Who’s the sexist here Rob? You just don’t see it because you’ve drank this indoctrination down for years.

“Your obvious evasion is telling enough that you want to avoid admitting what everyone has known for centuries.”
-Rob Stone

That hard work is more beneficial to society and respectable to observers, than whining? I’d have to agree.

“You are ignoring the point. Women should have EQUAL OPPORTUNITY in the military or not. If a person can prove they are qualified then their gender or sex should not matter.”
-Rob Stone

Should in theory vs. can in practice, is the concept you are ignoring in some half whit attempt to prove me sexist. I gave you a chance to prove this and you blew it, I’ll address this below.

“Why should a skinny guy get an opportunity/consideration that a bulky women could not?”
-Rob Stone

Because one woman does not represent her entire sex, nor does one man. The military does not, and cannot as an organization, write SOP based upon individual outliers of otherwise clear, statistically supported, generalized fact.

“I still don't know why there should be unequal opportunity between men and women.”
-Rob Stone

Because until they invent combat reliable, powered battle suits (like in sci-fi movies) that multiply individual soldier strength to the point organic biological strength is not a factor necessary to be measured for individual soldier effectiveness on the battle field…And women no longer need separate living, bathing, or medical needs…It is still currently detrimental to ground combat unit capability, cohesion, and logistical support needs to have women as organic personnel. That’s why.

"Statistically speaking there is about the same percentage of women as there are dwarfs, amputees, and handicapped people, that could be trained to do it."--David Jackson
“At least you no longer hide your offensive bigotry.”
-Rob Stone

Since you are acting dim enough to think that’s an insult to someone, just curious as to who YOU are bigoted against? Since all I did was point out the comparable capability to carry 200-250lbs of dead weight over uneven terrain between different categories of human beings, and you see this as “offensive bigotry” just who did I mention that was a lesser person than someone else mentioned and thus making it offensive? Are any of those categories of people less human than any of the others? Who is the bigot here Rob?

"I have an idea, how about instead of just whining about what’s not fair, sexist, and bigoted, you propose a solution that works!?"--David Jackson
“Okay. Here goes: everyone treat everyone else with equal opportunity, including equal opportunities for rewards and punishments. Everyone has the same opportunity to qualify for all positions.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, you had a real shot there (pssst, this is where you blew it) and all you did was show how completely inept you are at recognizing the complexity of needs a large dynamic organization requires.

Are you going to raise the budget for the Infantry School, Armor School, all Special Operations selection courses, and ancillary support personnel to account for the money spent training individuals who will fail out of these courses, who sill now do so in greater numbers, due to females biologically lacking the body strength to pass at the same standards as males? Each individual needs weeks of water, food, ammo, medical treatment, housing, fuel for vehicles, etc, etc, and all of that is wasted when someone fails and is re-classed to a different job when they couldn’t hack it. Just asking since you failed to answer this question the first time.
Or are you going to institute a physical capabilities test, before you are even allowed to go to any one of these schools, that test the individual’s ability to be an asset to a ground combat unit and weed out those who cant do it before they go to schools and soak up part of the budget? Only problem being there will be few who pass because generally speaking men in those programs can build their bodies to be capable of passing and women biologically cannot. So you will be weeding out men who could have made it along with all the women who could not have, thus degrading the numbers of people attending these schools and causing personnel problems.
You see Rob, it’s all a bit more complicated than your flowery, utopian, answer alleges.

“It is quite obvious. But you should get over your emotional, reactionary whining and become a better person.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, another cheap shot from a man with cheap arguments. You stay classy Rob.

Rob Stone

"Do you know what burden of proof is Rob?"--David Jackson

As a matter of fact I do. You made a claim and then demanded that I provide a study that takes all of your criteria into account. Had you been an honest broker, you would have produced a study that backed your claim. But you didn't. Because all the studies that take your criteria into account actually refute your claim.

Instead of reaching a conclusion and then searching for the evidence to back it, start with the evidence and see where it leads you.

"The burden of proof is on you, and any feminist who wants to make the same argument; that any “pay gap” is based on a bias against women."--David Jackson

I provided scientific studies that showed just that. You simply dismissed them using cherry-picked lines that seemed to support what you want to believe. If you want to refute the studies then do so with CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. This is exactly why these debates with you are so futile; you refuse to be objective in the face of reality.

Your CONSAD study: Now, there's a good start. You actually posted what seems to be a fairly credible study. The study acknowledges the gap and explains some of the reasons behind it (much like the study I posted earlier). The problem with the CONSAD study is that it never considers discrimination and ONLY looks at other factors. After all their factors are considered, the study never explains the reason why a gap remains or even considers that it could be gender discrimination.

"That measurable discrimination against women simply because they are women no longer exists? I did, see above."--David Jackson

No you didn't. The study never mentions discrimination. You proved nothing.

"Their gender is more important to determining discrimination than their position in society!? Who’s the sexist here Rob?"--David Jackson

You are. I asked the gender of the people who wrote the laws to demonstrate my obvious claim that our laws were written by men from the perspective of men. For some reason you want to deny what we all know.

"Should in theory vs. can in practice, is the concept you are ignoring in some half whit attempt to prove me sexist."--David Jackson

You refuse to answer the question. One more attempt: Should women have EQUAL OPPORTUNITY in the military or not? If a woman can do everything a man who is qualified for infantry can do, should she be allowed the opportunity he is allowed? A simple yes or no.

"Because one woman does not represent her entire sex, nor does one man."--David Jackson

Of course not. That's the reason for the word OPPORTUNITY. Should every person be afforded the same, equal OPPORTUNITY to prove themselves? You continue to evade.

"It is still currently detrimental to ground combat unit capability, cohesion, and logistical support needs to have women as organic personnel."--David Jackson

That is a sexist comment. Men invented the conditions for other men. Women shouldn't even be allowed the opportunity in your mind. Totally sexist.

"just who did I mention that was a lesser person than someone else mentioned and thus making it offensive?"--David Jackson

You implied that a woman could never do this.

"just curious as to who YOU are bigoted against?"--David Jackson

No one. I don't prejudge. I treat others based on their actions.

"Who is the bigot here Rob?"--David Jackson

I've already answered that question. More than once.

"Lol, you had a real shot there (pssst, this is where you blew it) and all you did was show how completely inept you are at recognizing the complexity of needs a large dynamic organization requires."--David Jackson

So, for the record, you disagree that "everyone treat everyone else with equal opportunity, including equal opportunities for rewards and punishments. Everyone has the same opportunity to qualify for all positions."

You admit you are not in favor of equal opportunity. That's prejudiced. You are a bigot but you can't just say it in plain English, you insist on dancing around it hoping that anyone reading this doesn't see the obvious.

David Jackson

“I provided scientific studies that showed just that. You simply dismissed them using cherry-picked lines that seemed to support what you want to believe. If you want to refute the studies then do so with CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. This is exactly why these debates with you are so futile; you refuse to be objective in the face of reality.”
-Rob Stone

Blatant LIE! As provided in my last post, when asked how much of the gap is attributable to discrimination AAUW spokeswoman Lisa Maatz said herself in an NPR interview, "We are still trying to figure that out." That means it didn’t prove any discrimination. It has been shown the study in question was flawed in its analysis in that it failed to accurately compare incomes between people who do the same work. It was also admitted in the study in question That AAUW report you cited also notes that part of the wage-gap may be owed to women’s, in general, purportedly “inferior negotiating skills” and not discriminating employers. Those are not “cherry-picked lines” Rob those are facts proving your only significant source did NOT prove discrimination against women.
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2012/10/24/28990/study-one-year-out-of-college-women-earn-only-82-p/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html
http://washingtonexaminer.com/bogus-aauw-study-perpetuates-wage-gap-myths/article/2512127


You have singlehandedly proved in one paragraph you will not argue with facts and will event lie to promote your side of the issue. You have no credibility left after that.

“The problem with the CONSAD study is that it never considers discrimination and ONLY looks at other factors. After all their factors are considered, the study never explains the reason why a gap remains or even considers that it could be gender discrimination.”
-Rob Stone

That’s because the discrimination argument has no solid evidence whatsoever, and they didn’t find any evidence of such when conducting their analysis. Zip, zilch, nadda. It didn’t consider that space people are taking women’s money behind their backs either, for the same reasons, so obviously a flawed study. (that last sentence was sarcasm since you seem to have trouble with that)
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf


“No you didn't. The study never mentions discrimination. You proved nothing.”
-Rob Stone

That’s because they didn’t find any. And the sources you provided didn’t either. Aww what’s the matter Rob your world view has been proven a work of academic fiction again? It’s okay, radical feminists will still agree with you regardless of the facts so you will have some friends.


“You are. I asked the gender of the people who wrote the laws to demonstrate my obvious claim that our laws were written by men from the perspective of men. For some reason you want to deny what we all know.”
-Rob Stone

I asked why the gender of people is more important to perspective of who wrote the laws than their profession as a lawyer. For some reason you want to deny what we all know, 1) being a lawyer is more of a differentiating factor than being a man or woman and 2) you’re a sexist for believing otherwise.


“You refuse to answer the question. One more attempt: Should women have EQUAL OPPORTUNITY in the military or not? If a woman can do everything a man who is qualified for infantry can do, should she be allowed the opportunity he is allowed? A simple yes or no.”
-Rob Stone

Are you freaking serious!? Refused to answer the question? Where did you learn basic English comprehension, I have been fairly clear on this, until the DoD had unlimited funds and/or we have individual powered ground combat suits right out of science fiction, NO. And guess what Rob!? The military is not part of our free and open society, so IT”S NOT SEXIST! It would be sexist if regardless of those other things (budget and iron man suits) I didn’t think women should be allowed.


“Of course not. That's the reason for the word OPPORTUNITY. Should every person be afforded the same, equal OPPORTUNITY to prove themselves? You continue to evade.”
-Rob Stone

Wow. I addressed this in my last post. You accuse me of “evading” yet again evaded the question I asked you AGAIN on if you were going to raise the budget for training costs or redesign training with the accompanying personnel issues it would produce in order to create this opportunity for women. You have yet to answer that question, until you do, your accusations of evasiveness in this argument are as absurd as your lies about the pay gap evidence.


“That is a sexist comment. Men invented the conditions for other men. Women shouldn't even be allowed the opportunity in your mind. Totally sexist.”
-Rob Stone

No, that’s a biologically sound comment. Men did not invent these conditions to have some grown up form of a “boys only club” Rob. The realities of war created these conditions. Whine and cry all you want, claiming that “men invented these conditions for other men” is the most willfully ignorant statement you have made in some time. I suppose the only reason countries segregate their Olympic teams based upon sex is because men invented the conditions for other men right? I’m sure general performance has nothing to do with it…


“You implied that a woman could never do this.”
-Rob Stone

You are either again confused or again lying. No, I plainly stated women in general, were of roughly the same overall capability as dwarfs, amputees, and handicapped people are, in general, to be trained to be an asset to a ground combat unit. I specifically mentioned there are individual outliers, and I addressed this. I also do not think any of those people are any less human beings than each other or men. You were offended so apparently you do think that. That would make you a bigot.


“No one. I don't prejudge. I treat others based on their actions.”
-Rob Stone

Good, than you can start judging on the facts capability and not feelings.


"Who is the bigot here Rob?"--David Jackson
“I've already answered that question. More than once.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, you’re just confused. Your focus on sex and gender in judging someone would in fact make it more you than me. Sorry if the truth hurts.


“You admit you are not in favor of equal opportunity. That's prejudiced. You are a bigot but you can't just say it in plain English, you insist on dancing around it hoping that anyone reading this doesn't see the obvious.”
-Rob Stone

You are an insincere, deceitful, name-caller, and fortunately for me, most people are capable of the common sense you seemed to have lost in your political indoctrination. As stated, several times, the military is NOT part of our free and open society, and thus equal opportunity takes a second place priority over expediency and practicality. The military does not, and cannot as an organization, write and enforce SOPs based upon individual outliers of otherwise clear, statistically supported, generalized facts. But keep on calling me names instead of proving anything. It only helps to make the point. That this is how feminists (and other extremists) get a bad rap.

Rob Stone

"It has been shown the study in question was flawed in its analysis in that it failed to accurately compare incomes between people who do the same work."--David Jackson

Who showed it was flawed? And it does accurately compare incomes between people who do the same job (do you even read this stuff or do you just condemn it because you don't like it?).

"Too often, both women and men dismiss the pay gap as simply a matter of different choices, but even women who make the same occupational choices that men make will not typically end up with the same earnings."

"Despite the progress women have made, gender pay equity in the workplace remains an issue. Improvements to federal equal pay laws are needed to ensure that women and men are compensated fairly when they perform the same or comparable work."

"Lettau (1997) also found that part-time employees earn less on an hourly basis than do full-time employees working in the same firms at the same occupations. Although those who desire to obtain part-time jobs often must change employers, jobs, or occupations (Gornick & Meyers, 2003), part-time work is penalized even if workers stay in the same occupation or with the same employer."
http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/Behind-the-Pay-Gap.pdf

"That AAUW report you cited also notes that part of the wage-gap may be owed to women’s, in general, purportedly “inferior negotiating skills” and not discriminating employers."--David Jackson

YES. I KNOW. STIPULATED. As I mentioned, there are several factors that determine the gender pay gap that do not include discrimination. However, there remains a substantial gap that is due to discrimination.

"That’s because the discrimination argument has no solid evidence whatsoever, and they didn’t find any evidence of such when conducting their analysis."--David Jackson

They didn't look for discrimination or even consider it. The whole concept was ignored. Yet the study cannot explain why a pay gap continues even when taking all their factors into account. It is incomplete.

"I asked why the gender of people is more important to perspective of who wrote the laws than their profession as a lawyer."--David Jackson

Yet another example of you attempting to confuse the issue. Men have written most of our laws. Most of our laws have been written from the male perspective. Therefore, our legal system reflects a primarily male perspective.

"Where did you learn basic English comprehension, I have been fairly clear on this"--David Jackson

Where did you learn how to answer a question because you have evaded answering it by going off on a tangent.

Should women be allowed EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to prove themselves? Simple. No science fiction suits. Put them through the same test a man is given and let the chips fall where they may. Why can't you just answer it? Never mind, I already know. Because your answer will be clearly sexist.

"I asked you AGAIN on if you were going to raise the budget for training costs or redesign training with the accompanying personnel issues it would produce in order to create this opportunity for women. You have yet to answer that question, until you do, your accusations of evasiveness in this argument are as absurd as your lies about the pay gap evidence."--David Jackson

Again, you try to confuse the issue in order to avoid answering.

No training or budgets or redesign BS distractions. Should a woman be allowed the same OPPORTUNITY that a man is allowed (not a retrained or redesigned opportunity, but the SAME opportunity)?

"The realities of war created these conditions."--David Jackson

Did men or women create the realities of war?

"No, I plainly stated women in general, were of roughly the same overall capability as dwarfs, amputees, and handicapped people are, in general, to be trained to be an asset to a ground combat unit."--David Jackson

You contiue with this offensive, sexist, bigoted BS (with no evidence). You are embarrassing yourself.

"Your focus on sex and gender in judging someone would in fact make it more you than me. Sorry if the truth hurts."--David Jackson

The truth is that I have argued AGAINST judging based on sex and gender while you have done the opposite, to the point of judging that women are comparable to people with disabilities. Talk about pathetic hypocrisy.

"You are an insincere, deceitful, name-caller . . . But keep on calling me names instead of proving anything. It only helps to make the point. That this is how feminists (and other extremists) get a bad rap."--David Jackson

You are a lying, name-calling bully who resorts to confusing issues to avoid admitting his sexism. You refuse to base your arguments on honest reasoning and credible evidence. It only helps to reinforce the image that right-wing extremists or hypocritical bigots.

David Jackson

“Who showed it was flawed? And it does accurately compare incomes between people who do the same job (do you even read this stuff or do you just condemn it because you don't like it?).”
-Rob Stone

Well Rob if you would bother to read what I post instead of just respond by regurgitated political rhetoric, you would have read the part where I noted the AAUW study counted "social science" as one college major and reported that, among such majors, women earned only 83 percent of what men earned. It so happens that "social science" includes both economics and sociology majors. Economics majors (66 percent male) have a median income of $70,000; for sociology majors (68 percent female) it is $40,000. Economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute has pointed to similar incongruities. The AAUW study classifies jobs like librarian, lawyer, professional athlete, and "media occupations" under a single rubric--"other white collar." In other words the report compares the pay of male lawyers with that of female librarians; of male athletes with that of female communications assistants. THAT’S NOT A COMPARISON BETWEEN PEOPLE WHO DO THE SAME WORK!!! Given the entire study was commissioned to compare men and women doing the same work, that makes it flawed now doesn’t it!

“However, there remains a substantial gap that is due to discrimination.”
-Rob Stone

That’s your personal claim. NOTHING in the AAUW report states that! Your biased opinion is not a fact because you want it to be.

“They didn't look for discrimination or even consider it. The whole concept was ignored. Yet the study cannot explain why a pay gap continues even when taking all their factors into account. It is incomplete.”
-Rob Stone

They didn’t assume it was present and specifically look for evidence that it does. They took an objective look at the causes and found evidence for several factors, NONE of which turned out to be discrimination against women. Do you really think that’s what a scientific study is Rob? A study that looks for a specific, predetermined, outcome instead of objectively finding the causes of something based upon the return data? You need to get off the MSNBC website and back to class.

“Yet another example of you attempting to confuse the issue. Men have written most of our laws. Most of our laws have been written from the male perspective. Therefore, our legal system reflects a primarily male perspective.”
-Rob Stone

That’s a sexist statement. Most layers may have been men but most men are not lawyers. Yet almost all of our laws are written by only lawyers, not men at large. This isn't ancient Athens, all the males in society don't vote yes or no on the laws. Your assertion that “our legal system reflects a primarily male perspective” is based upon the sexist premise that being a common male citizen has more in common with being a lawyer writing the laws that affect everyone than being a common female citizen. You’re a shining example of anti-male sexist thought, no wonder you defend radical feminist claims.

“Should women be allowed EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to prove themselves? Simple. No science fiction suits. Put them through the same test a man is given and let the chips fall where they may. Why can't you just answer it? Never mind, I already know. Because your answer will be clearly sexist.”
-Rob Stone

Again, I answered it in my last post. That was for the 2nd time. Let’s try a third! With the current training budget and personnel issues, no. And again for the 3rd time, the military is not the free and open society that it protects, it is not sexist for it to permit omit people from certain service based upon biological generalizations. Just like people who are too short aren’t allowed in the infantry and people who are too tall aren’t allowed in tanks or submarines, women aren’t allowed in ground combat MOSs. None of that is permissible in the private sector, but it’s sound policy for the armed forces. IF they ever invent equipment that makes organic biological strength not a factor necessary for individual soldier effectiveness on the battle field and women no longer need separate living, bathing, or medical needs, I may change my mind.

“Again, you try to confuse the issue in order to avoid answering.”
-Rob Stone

You literally ignore a question by claiming it’s too “confusing” for you and then call me out for not answering a question. Wow, you apply for a job at the IRS? Taking the 5th are you? I’ve answered it three times now, see above, or below for that matter. Now ANSWER THE QUESTION you were asked Rob! Are you going to raise the budget for training costs or redesign training with the accompanying personnel issues it would produce in order to create this opportunity for women? Which is it??? It’s not confusing, it’s being an adult who lives in reality and recognizing there are trade offs for everything and second and third order effects for every decision, especially in a bureaucracy as large as the US government and armed forces.

“Did men or women create the realities of war?”
-Rob Stone

Lol, are you actually implying war is men’s fault? That one sex is responsible for human conflict! Wow, you are a foaming at the mouth sexist Rob. The realities of war are created by the situation of two or more factions killing each other. Those factions are a product of their political and military make up. It is not something invented by men or women.

“You contiue with this offensive, sexist, bigoted BS (with no evidence). You are embarrassing yourself.”
-Rob Stone

Perhaps you could educate me? Why is it sexist and bigoted, I’m curious? Enlighten me oh well educated and progressive one.

“The truth is that I have argued AGAINST judging based on sex and gender…”
-Rob Stone

Except when saying that all our laws are written by men in the male perspective for men and that men have created the realities of warfare huh Rob. The point was you’re being a hypocrite.

“You are a lying, name-calling bully who resorts to confusing issues to avoid admitting his sexism. You refuse to base your arguments on honest reasoning and credible evidence. It only helps to reinforce the image that right-wing extremists or hypocritical bigots.”
-Rob Stone

Laughable. Show where I am lying. Then show where I called you a name or labeled you where I wasn't responding to a specific behavior you exhibited. Then show how I met the definition of a “bully”!? Or is it that you're feeling like you’re being pushed around by a bigger foe Rob because you haven’t the intellectual or fact finding capacity to match my argument in this exchange? Yes, that’s it, your confusion and lack of facts to back up your claims makes me a bully! Keep calling names and failing to prove anything, it’s what you’re talented at.

I have based my arguments, that there is no proof of discrimination, on the following evidence you happen to not like:
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2012/10/24/28990/study-one-year-out-of-college-women-earn-only-82-p/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

http://washingtonexaminer.com/bogus-aauw-study-perpetuates-wage-gap-myths/article/2512127

Bottom line, you have alleged discrimination and have yet to post any study that proves discrimination exists. The only remotely credible studies posted so far have determined that a roughly 7% gap remains with no evidence of what causes it. You say that percentage is discrimination but have posted nothing to prove that. I have argued that there is no proof of discrimination and so far you have yet to counter that with any facts whatsoever. Until you have proof, get over yourself, you lost that argument.

Concerning individual opportunity in the Armed Forces, to avoid any confusion you have suffered, here are some questions you will most likely fail to respond to attempting to save face:
1. Do women, in general terms of the entire human female sex, have the same overall body strength capabilities as men, in general terms of the entire human male sex? YES or NO?

2. Does the DoD, have an obligation to allow training for individual opportunities, based only upon tested individual merit, and ignore all, statistically proven, generalized, physical traits of people volunteering for service? YES or NO?

3. At what cost are you willing to allow for the changes to the DoD budget necessary to implement such changes to training? A) Some B) None C) Unlimited

4. Would you support a federally mandated Department of Education physical education standard that requires 2-3mile run times and a certain number of push-ups, sit-ups, and pull-ups, in under an allotted time in order to graduate High School, not only for the general population’s health, but to help with military readiness to support individual merit based job assignment? YES or NO?

Rob Stone

"It so happens that "social science" includes both economics and sociology majors. Economics majors (66 percent male) have a median income of $70,000; for sociology majors (68 percent female) it is $40,000."--David Jackson

I have searched the study and can find none of that. Perhaps you could cite a page number.

“However, there remains a substantial gap that is due to discrimination.”
-Rob Stone
"That’s your personal claim. NOTHING in the AAUW report states that!"--David Jackson

Yes it does. I have posted it twice. See pages iii, 2, 3.

I know what a scientific study is. One that looks for everything BUT discrimination is not a credible, objective study.

"That’s a sexist statement."--David Jackson

You don't know the meaning of "sexist."
Merriam-Webster defines sexim (something a sexist engages in) as:
1 prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially: discrimination against women
2 behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

Pointing out that men have written most of the laws is not sexist, it is a fact (although arguments can be made that many laws are sexist). Pointing out that our legal system has been devised by a primarily male point of view is not sexist, it is fact (although arguments can be made that our legal system is sexist).

Pointing out sexism isn't sexist. That's dishonest.

"Most layers may have been men but most men are not lawyers. Yet almost all of our laws are written by only lawyers, not men at large."--David Jackson

And that's an absurd response. Almost all of our laws are written by MALE lawyers. Attempting to change the subject from the sexes to a profession is absolutely dishonest.

"With the current training budget and personnel issues, no."--David Jackson

You are AVOIDING the question and I'm not going to give you any more chances. Screw budgets and training. Should a woman be allowed to take the same tests that a man takes?

"You literally ignore a question by claiming it’s too “confusing” for you and then call me out for not answering a question."--David Jackson

It isn't confusing to me--you are attempting to confuse me. I see it for what it is: diversion.

"Now ANSWER THE QUESTION you were asked Rob! Are you going to raise the budget for training costs or redesign training with the accompanying personnel issues it would produce in order to create this opportunity for women?"--David Jackson

It wouldn't take any extra training or redesign or personnel to offer equal opportunity. It would take the SAME things it takes for men. But that's your way of evading the question--by creating a false set of circumstances and then arguing about stuff you make up. Not going to play that game.

You've essentially admited that you don't think women should be allowed the same opportunities men are.

"Lol, are you actually implying war is men’s fault?"--David Jackson

I didn't think it was an implication; I thought it was a clear statement of fact. How many wars are the fault of women?

"Perhaps you could educate me? Why is it sexist and bigoted, I’m curious?"--David Jackson

No you aren't. You are fully aware that comparing women to dwarves, amputees, the handicapped, etc. is sexist and bigoted.

"Except when saying that all our laws are written by men in the male perspective for men and that men have created the realities of warfare huh Rob. The point was you’re being a hypocrite."--David Jackson

I said MOST laws are written by men (and have been) and, of course, the realities of war have been created by mostly men. You just threw in "hypocrite" for the sake of using the word. Obviously you don't know what it means even though you regularly engage in hypocrisy.

"Show where I am lying."--David Jackson

When you claimed the study showed things that aren't in the study.

"Then show where I called you a name"--David Jackson

David Jackson: "You are an insincere, deceitful, name-caller"

"or labeled you where I wasn't responding to a specific behavior you exhibited"--David Jackson

David Jackson: "You need to get off the MSNBC website and back to class."

"Then show how I met the definition of a “bully”!? Or is it that you're feeling like you’re being pushed around by a bigger foe Rob because you haven’t the intellectual or fact finding capacity to match my argument in this exchange?"--David Jackson

LOL. You met the definition of "bully" in the next sentence! You attempt to bully but hate the fact that I stand up to you. It's obvious your arrogance gets in the way of civility. No one can accuse you of not having a healthy ego.

"Bottom line, you have alleged discrimination and have yet to post any study that proves discrimination exists."--David Jackson

Lie.

And I'm not going to take the bait and address your questions until you answer why women shouldn't be allowed equal opportunity.

David Jackson

“I have searched the study and can find none of that. Perhaps you could cite a page number.”
-Rob Stone

No problem, same page numbers you gave me. Their grouping of majors can be found there. Also pages 40, 41, 43, and 45.

“Yes it does. I have posted it twice. See pages iii, 2, 3.”
-Rob Stone

HA! Your f*king kidding right? “These unexplained gaps are evidence of discrimination, which remains a serious problem for women in the work force.” –AAUW Study
Lol, “unexplained gaps” are evidence of discrimination? Then why are they unexplained, wouldn’t that explain it!? The AAUW itself even backed away from calling this “evidence” when interviewed about it. You just don’t want to acknowledge that. As I posted before; when asked how much of the gap is attributable to discrimination AAUW spokeswoman Lisa Maatz said herself "We are still trying to figure that out." They DON’T KNOW! If any, we are all still waiting for the proof.
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2012/10/24/28990/study-one-year-out-of-college-women-earn-only-82-p/

You still owe PROOF that any pay gap exists due to discrimination against women for being women by employers. I’m waiting.

“Pointing out that our legal system has been devised by a primarily male point of view is not sexist, it is fact”
-Rob Stone

Ah, then you can prove it! Do so now please. Or is the fact that there is no evidence proof enough… lol.

“And that's an absurd response. Almost all of our laws are written by MALE lawyers. Attempting to change the subject from the sexes to a profession is absolutely dishonest.”
-Rob Stone

No, no Rob it isn’t. Attempting to make it about sex instead of the profession that writes laws for a living is sexist.

"With the current training budget and personnel issues, no."--David Jackson
“You are AVOIDING the question and I'm not going to give you any more chances. Screw budgets and training. Should a woman be allowed to take the same tests that a man takes?”
-Rob Stone

LOL wow! That’s not avoiding the question, I gave you the answer for four consecutive posts now. Sane people do not keep accusing people of avoiding questions when they have answered them each time. Your answer is posted directly above in quotes. Again, for the fourth time: with the current training budget and personnel issues, no. And I don’t think we can just change those issues to make them go away.

“It isn't confusing to me--you are attempting to confuse me. I see it for what it is: diversion.”
-Rob Stone

If it’s not confusing you should either be able to disprove it or answer to it. You have yet to do either. STILL waiting for you to answer the question…

“It wouldn't take any extra training or redesign or personnel to offer equal opportunity. It would take the SAME things it takes for men. But that's your way of evading the question--by creating a false set of circumstances and then arguing about stuff you make up. Not going to play that game.
-Rob Stone

Prove it! Prove that “it wouldn't take any extra training or redesign or personnel to offer equal opportunity” then prove what I argues was a “made up false set of circumstances.” You don’t want to play the; argue over facts in reality game because you’ll lose. Fact is, the more failures from a course you have, the more time and money is spent on training people who don’t end up graduating. Fact is, the more failures from a course the more people have to be re-classed into a different job. Fact is, the more failures from a course, the larger you have to make that course (which increases training personnel, materials, facilities and thus budget) to keep meeting the minimum number of graduates necessary to fill open slots graduates are to fill. That’s the real world Rob, where things have to actually work after you make your flowery statement about the way things ‘should’ be.

“You've essentially admited that you don't think women should be allowed the same opportunities men are.”
-Rob Stone

Under the current bureaucratic structure of the armed forces, and the armed forces alone, yes. This really took you this many posts? Oh, and it’s not just women, remember I included height, medical status, and mental status in there as well. Also for the fourth time; the military is not part of our free society it is a weapon that protects it. Thus it does not have to follow the same rules.

“I didn't think it was an implication; I thought it was a clear statement of fact. How many wars are the fault of women?”
-Rob Stone

And you still can’t see your own sexism! There are about as many wars that are the “fault of women” as there are the “fault of men”. Were the wars started because the men said so or because the politicians said so? Were the wars started because the politicians were men or because the politicians were greedy, angry, psychotic, etc? Wars are not started by a single sex they are started by lunatics, national leaders, or a combination of the two. Blaming it on one sex or the other is SEXISM at its most obvious.

“No you aren't. You are fully aware that comparing women to dwarves, amputees, the handicapped, etc. is sexist and bigoted.”
-Rob Stone

No I’m not. I was comparing the physical ability to carry 250lbs plus of dead weight over rough terrain between different subsets of human beings. If what I said is sexist and bigoted, I’m curious as to how. You STILL have to explain this. Please do so now.

“I said MOST laws are written by men (and have been) and, of course, the realities of war have been created by mostly men. You just threw in "hypocrite" for the sake of using the word. Obviously you don't know what it means even though you regularly engage in hypocrisy.”
-Rob Stone

Were those law writing men common citizens or lawyers? What men exactly have created the realities of war? You want to make arguments then not back them up with anything substantial quite often. Until you do otherwise, I maintain the “realities of war” are created by the situation of two or more factions killing each other. It is not something invented by men or women. And also that being a common male citizen has more in common with being a common female citizen than it does with being a lawyer (regardless of sex) writing the laws that affect all of us.

"Show where I am lying."--David Jackson
“When you claimed the study showed things that aren't in the study.”
-Rob Stone

Which was what exactly??? Quote my supposed lie with date and time please.

"or labeled you where I wasn't responding to a specific behavior you exhibited"--David Jackson
David Jackson: "You need to get off the MSNBC website and back to class."
-Rob Stone

That was in response to your reply alleging a study was “incomplete” because it didn’t search for a specific pre-determined outcome in its results. Given the purpose of a study and your refutation of the one I posted, that statement is warranted. You need to re-learn what an objective study is, any first year STEM course should be able to help you with this. Only propagandist outfits (like MSNBC and certain other media) accept or promote spun data for political purposes. Real studies do not.

“LOL. You met the definition of "bully" in the next sentence! You attempt to bully but hate the fact that I stand up to you. It's obvious your arrogance gets in the way of civility. No one can accuse you of not having a healthy ego.”
-Rob Stone

Wow dude. A bully picks on someone, against their will, who is weaker than they are. I disagree with you because you are an extremist, and you voluntarily respond, half the time by calling me names. Big difference, but thanks for proving you’ll resort to baseless accusations and name calling before proving anything yet again.

"Bottom line, you have alleged discrimination and have yet to post any study that proves discrimination exists."--David Jackson
“Lie.”
-Rob Stone

No, it is in fact the truth. See above…again. You apparently assume you can lie and repeat yourself over and over again and I’ll just give up or we will all assume you’re right. But in the real world facts outweigh regurgitated rhetoric. Still waiting on those facts and evidence!

“And I'm not going to take the bait and address your questions until you answer why women shouldn't be allowed equal opportunity.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, oh didn’t see that coming. Rob Stone running away from direct questions. I have answered why the military that fights wars for us should not be held to the same standard of individual opportunity as our free society. I addressed this on: Wednesday May 22nd at 11:56am, Tuesday May 21st at 12:01pm, on Thursday, May 16th at 1:46 pm, and 2:40 pm on Wednesday May 15th. I grow tired of repeating myself, my answers in those posts is sufficient unless you have a specific rebuttal to anything I wrote in them. Feel free to quote them and type your response. I’d be happy to address this. You can also answer the questions you were openly asked at that time. IF you have any realistic un-contradictory answers…I have my doubts.

Again, and STILL the bottom line of our argument. Lets try this again shall we!

-IF the AAUW study has proof of discrimination, (as you allege) is said proof compiled with or without the data that compared the income of women and men doing different jobs? If not, and thus the numbers are still credible, what was the percentage of gap that’s due to discrimination?

- Concerning individual opportunity in the Armed Forces, to avoid any confusion you have suffered, here are some questions you will most likely fail to respond to, again, attempting to save face:

1. Do women, in general terms of the entire human female sex, have the same overall body strength capabilities as men, in general terms of the entire human male sex? YES or NO?

2. Does the DoD, have an obligation to allow training for individual opportunities, based only upon tested individual merit, and ignore all, statistically proven, generalized, physical traits of people volunteering for service? YES or NO?

3. At what cost are you willing to allow for the changes to the DoD budget necessary to implement such changes to training? A) Some B) None C) Unlimited

4. Would you support a federally mandated Department of Education physical education standard that requires 2-3mile run times and a certain number of push-ups, sit-ups, and pull-ups, in under an allotted time in order to graduate High School, not only for the general population’s health, but to help with military readiness to support individual merit based job assignment? YES or NO?

5. (A new one!) should men and women have different standards for physical fitness and readiness in the military? YES or NO?

Rob Stone

"Their grouping of majors can be found there. Also pages 40, 41, 43, and 45."--David Jackson

But you are only focusing on the majors aspect...they also took occupational choices into account. And those pages clearly show a pay gap between men and women who have the same full-time jobs. I know you don't like it but I'm not going to argue the numbers any longer.

"HA! Your f*king kidding right?"--David Jackson

It's you're. And no. Clearly you don't know how gender discrimination works. Sexist employers don't announce their sexism. Again, the study clearly reveals that there is a pay gap based in part on gender discrimination. I'm not going to argue science with you any longer.

"“Pointing out that our legal system has been devised by a primarily male point of view is not sexist, it is fact”
-Rob Stone
"Ah, then you can prove it! Do so now please."--David Jackson

You are unreal. You want me to prove that our legal system has been devised primarily by men? Only men wrote, signed, and ratified the original Constitution.
http://256.com/gray/constitution/signers.html
In the history of this country, 12,098 people have served in Congress. 297 have been women.
http://history.house.gov/Exhibition-and-Publications/WIC/Women-in-Congress/
http://history.house.gov/Institution/Total-Members/Total-Members/
In the history of this country, only four of 112 justices of the Supreme Court have been women.

Okay....I'm done playing this stupid game. If I have to prove the obvious then you are obviously just messing around with no intention to have a serious discussion.

David Jackson

“But you are only focusing on the majors aspect...they also took occupational choices into account. And those pages clearly show a pay gap between men and women who have the same full-time jobs. I know you don't like it but I'm not going to argue the numbers any longer.”
-Rob Stone

They did take occupational choices into account (which are choices not discrimination), but that does not change the fact comparisons were made with grouped categories of majors that have different average wages and ratios of male to female employees. In other words, their data is skewed by comparisons between men and women NOT doing the same work. The numbers don’t support your claims, I wouldn’t argue with them anymore if I were you either.

“Again, the study clearly reveals that there is a pay gap based in part on gender discrimination. I'm not going to argue science with you any longer.”
-Rob Stone

Ah, then you can clearly state the scientifically derived percentage. Please do so. As of right now all you have helped me prove is “gender discrimination” works by feminists groups and people like you claiming it exists inside the percentages of undetermined-cause pay differences found in some studies, and we are all supposed to just take your word for it that it’s caused by bias against women.

“You are unreal. You want me to prove that our legal system has been devised primarily by men?”
-Rob Stone

No, you stated “male point of view” I want you to prove that being a male auto-mechanic, firefighter, cop, soldier, school teacher, construction worker, drafting technician, engineer, etc. makes you have more in common with a lawyer making thousands more than any common man or woman, and writing the laws the rest of us have to live by, simply because the lawyer is also male, than it does with a female school teacher, nurse, stay at home mother, HR specialist, professor, computer tech, logistician, etc. Attempting to make the comparison between lawyers and common citizens about sex instead of the profession that writes laws for a living is sexist, by definition. That’s not unreal.

“Okay....I'm done playing this stupid game. If I have to prove the obvious then you are obviously just messing around with no intention to have a serious discussion.”
-Rob Stone

Assuming that the average man has more in common with lawyers (because historically there have been more male lawyers than female) than they have in common with the average woman is not obvious. Assuming that the average male lawyer writes laws from a “male point of view” is not obvious. The average man and woman have more in common with each other than the average man does with the average lawyer. Our laws by definition are to apply to all equally, if not they can be challenged. If there is proof of otherwise, go ahead and post it. You can go ahead and throw in how men are also responsible for the “realities of war” while you’re at it. If not, I’m done playing the stupid game of you posting your biased opinions as obvious facts.

Oh by the way, there are still some questions you have to answer you forgot about.

-IF the AAUW study has proof of discrimination, (as you allege) what is the percentage of gap that’s due to discrimination?

- Concerning individual opportunity in the Armed Forces, do women, in general terms of the entire human female sex, have the same overall body strength capabilities as men, in general terms of the entire human male sex? YES or NO?

-Should men and women have different standards for physical fitness and readiness in the military? YES or NO?

-Does the DoD, have an obligation to allow training for individual opportunities, based only upon tested individual merit, and ignore all, statistically proven, generalized, physical traits of people volunteering for service? YES or NO?

-Given that the more failures from a course the more people have to be re-classed into a different job, and the larger you have to make that course (which increases training personnel, materials, facilities and thus budget) to keep meeting the minimum number of graduates necessary to fill open slots graduates are to fill, at what cost are you willing to allow for the changes to the DoD budget necessary to implement such changes to training? A) Some B) None C) Unlimited

-Would you support a federally mandated Department of Education physical education standard that requires 2-3mile run times and a certain number of push-ups, sit-ups, and pull-ups, in under an allotted time in order to graduate High School, not only for the general population’s health, but to help with military readiness to support individual merit based job assignment? YES or NO?

- Is comparing the physical ability to carry 250lbs plus of dead weight over rough terrain between different subsets of human beings, sexist or bigoted? WHY?

-Does me asking you these questions make be a “bully” even though you participate in these discussions voluntarily? WHY?

In short; claiming gender discrimination exists inside the percentages of undetermined-cause, gender pay differences, found in some studies, and that society is biased against women because male lawyers write our laws from a “male point of view”, and that men are the cause of war and responsible for the “realities of war”, is blatant sexism. Sexism that destroys any credibility that your true goal is “gender equality” and such destroyed credibility goes a long way to give feminism a bad rap.

Rob Stone

Oh, by the way, there are still some questions you have to answer you forgot about:

--Why did you mislead about what the posted studies have shown?
--Why do you think women should not have the same opportunities men have?
--Why do you believe that laws written by men don't come from a male point of view?
--Why do you not believe that men have started and conducted most wars in human history?

David Jackson

“--Why did you mislead about what the posted studies have shown?” –Rob Stone

I haven’t. The posted studies found the vast majority of gender pay gaps were explainable by legitimate, fair, or otherwise voluntary factors. Only single digit pay gap percentages remain, in some studies, and when they do there is nothing conclusively determining that gap has anything to do with sex based discrimination. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

“--Why do you think women should not have the same opportunities men have?” –Rob Stone

I don’t think that, as stated several times now. I think that; in the service of the armed forces only, with the current training budget and personnel issues, women should not be allowed in ground combat jobs. If they ever invent equipment that makes organic, biological, strength not a factor necessary for individual soldier effectiveness on the battle field, and women no longer need separate living, bathing, or medical needs, I may change my mind. Until then, it’s detrimental to ground combat unit capability, cohesion, and logistical support needs to have women as organic personnel. You want to believe that is sexist fine, I don’t care, but the bottom line is the military is not part of our free society it is a weapon that protects it, and thus it does not have to follow the same rules of individual opportunity we enjoy in civilian life. The military must use generalized criterion, fair to the individual or not, to efficiently and effectively organize itself.

--Why do you believe that laws written by men don't come from a male point of view?” –Rob Stone

Because I’m not going to pigeonhole an entire gender for political purposes. I don’t believe the majority of laws written are in some form of “male point of view” that marginalizes women. The gender of a lawyer/legislator is not more important to their perspective than their profession as a law maker. Being a lawyer/legislator is more of a differentiating factor in terms of point of view than being a man or woman. Blaming an entire gender for the actions of a slim minority of it's members is sexist.

“--Why do you not believe that men have started and conducted most wars in human history?” –Rob Stone

Because like the lawyer example, politicians, whether elected or monarchs, are far removed from the common man. Blaming men as a gender is ludicrous when the overwhelming majority of men haven’t, nor ever will, instigate a war. Again, being a political leader is more of a differentiating factor in terms of point of view than being a man or woman. Blaming an entire gender for the actions of a slim minority of it's members is sexist.

I was good enough to answer your questions. Now, are you going to finally answer the questions I have asked you concerning your positions?

Rob Stone

--Why did you mislead about what the posted studies have shown?

"Only single digit pay gap percentages remain, in some studies, and when they do there is nothing conclusively determining that gap has anything to do with sex based discrimination."--David Jackson

That is incorrect and misleading.

--Why do you think women should not have the same opportunities men have?

"I don’t think that, as stated several times now. I think that; in the service of the armed forces only, with the current training budget and personnel issues, women should not be allowed in ground combat jobs."--David Jackson

That's unequal opportunity. Period. You say you "don't think that" and then write that you do think that.

--Why do you believe that laws written by men don't come from a male point of view?

"I don’t believe the majority of laws written are in some form of “male point of view”"-David Jackson

If a law is written by a man then it is written from a male point of view. Simple. That doesn't mean that all laws written by men are sexist but it does mean that the bulk of our legal system is written from a male point of view.

Why do you not believe that men have started and conducted most wars in human history?

"Because like the lawyer example, politicians, whether elected or monarchs, are far removed from the common man"--David Jackson

Clear evasion. I said nothing about the "common" man. Men have historically ruled nations and started and fought wars. Throughout human history, MEN have created the realities of war. That's not sexist, it's fact.

"Now, are you going to finally answer the questions I have asked you concerning your positions?"--David Jackson

No. I am not going to go off onto your loaded tangents that are based on premises with which I disagree. I've made my points and pointed out your errors.

David Jackson

“That is incorrect and misleading.”
-Rob Stone

Really? Than you can provide the correct information cant you Rob. What percentage of the pay gap is due to discrimination against women? I’ve been waiting for that statistic from you for three weeks now.

“That's unequal opportunity. Period. You say you "don't think that" and then write that you do think that.”
-Rob Stone

Service in the armed forces is not a free and equal opportunity like jobs in the civilian sector. I have explained this multiple times to you, and you continue to ignore it in a very pathetic attempt to claim I’m “bigoted”. F@ckn lame. You can either respond to how my argument concerning the armed forces being different than society is wrong, or you can give up, but you cannot claim to be right when you fail to respond to the points I’ve made against you.

“If a law is written by a man then it is written from a male point of view. Simple. That doesn't mean that all laws written by men are sexist but it does mean that the bulk of our legal system is written from a male point of view.”
-Rob Stone

That’s your opinion, far from a fact. What is a simple fact is our laws are written from a lawyer’s point of view before they have anything to do with the fact most of the lawyers were men. What constitutes a “male point of view” and how does this make it different than laws written from a “female point of view”?

“Clear evasion. I said nothing about the "common" man. Men have historically ruled nations and started and fought wars. Throughout human history, MEN have created the realities of war. That's not sexist, it's fact.”
-Rob Stone

No, it’s not fact as some women have as well, and my response was no “clear evasion” Rob, apparently I’ve confused you again. Let’s try this again. Politicians/national leaders start wars not “men” in general, regardless of if most of the politicians in question were men. How many wars have been started by politicians/national leaders? Almost, if not, ALL of them. How many have been started by men NOT in a political leadership position? NONE. Some counties have gone to war because a woman leader ordered it. England and Australia come to mind. So, even if most wars are participated in under the powers that be being men, some wars are participated in when the powers that be are women, yet ALL wars are started or otherwise participated in under the authority of the powers that be; politicians/national leaders. In other words war and it’s realities are not caused by a sex. Blaming an entire sex or gender for the actions of a slim minority of its members is sexist. Period! This may come as a blow to feminist dogma but until you refute that logic, simply repeating that “men have historically ruled nations and started and fought and created the realities of war.” line over and over doesn’t make your claim any more true.

“No. I am not going to go off onto your loaded tangents that are based on premises with which I disagree. I've made my points and pointed out your errors.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, in other words I can answer your inquires but you cannot answer mine. That’s a good enough concession for me Rob; that means you lose. When you point out my so called “errors” I respond with logic as to why they are correct, and you fail to respond to that logic. You claim I’m off on “loaded tangents” but can’t even respond to them showing how they are "loaded", and when I respond to your points you simply re-word the same rhetoric, over and over again, and expect it to be different. That’s not articulating how anything you claim is accurate.

Rob Stone

"Than you can provide the correct information cant you Rob. What percentage of the pay gap is due to discrimination against women?"--David Jackson

It has already been provided. The answer is in the study. I am done arguing the facts that have already been discussed. I'm done spelling everything out for you when all you have to do is read the material you are so bent on criticizing.

"Service in the armed forces is not a free and equal opportunity like jobs in the civilian sector. I have explained this multiple times to you"--David Jackson

Yes...you are opposed to equal opportunity for women. You have made that very clear. You don't have to keep reiterating it.

“If a law is written by a man then it is written from a male point of view. Simple. That doesn't mean that all laws written by men are sexist but it does mean that the bulk of our legal system is written from a male point of view.”
-Rob Stone
"That’s your opinion, far from a fact."--David Jackson

No. It is a FACT that the bulk of our legal system has been devised from a male point of view (i.e., by men). Unless you can prove that the bulk of our laws are written from a female point of view or from a neutral point of view, which you can't, you are wrong.

"What constitutes a “male point of view” and how does this make it different than laws written from a “female point of view”?"--David Jackson

Oy vey! Really? You don't know what a male of point of view is and how it is different from a female one? Are you really that ignorant?

Here is an example of a law based on a male point of view: From the original XIV amendment (section 2): "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

"Politicians/national leaders start wars not “men” in general, regardless of if most of the politicians in question were men."--David Jackson

You say men don't start wars even though the people who start the wars are men. You are pretending that the lawyers that wrote our laws and the politicians that started the wars are just coincidentally male and that being male had no part of it. Ridiculous.

You deny the reality that is completely obvious. What absurd rubbish.

David Jackson

“It has already been provided. The answer is in the study. I am done arguing the facts that have already been discussed. I'm done spelling everything out for you when all you have to do is read the material you are so bent on criticizing.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, no it isn’t, you’re lying because you’re too arrogant to admit you are wrong. It’s a simple question Rob, what percentage of the male to female pay gap is due to discrimination against women? Post the number with a source; I’ve been waiting for going on a month for you to prove my claim wrong. Still waiting… Again; the AAUW study said there is a 6.6% gap that’s unexplained by any measured factor(s). The AAUW’s own spokeswoman admitted they are still trying to figure out how much of that remaining gap is discrimination there is if any. God, this is fun watching you run from facts. It’s like when we argue over the 2nd Amendment :-) I mean the way it’s looking, it’s almost like feminists skew the data on incomes in order to argue that women are discriminated against and make less than men for the same work or something!?

“Yes...you are opposed to equal opportunity for women. You have made that very clear. You don't have to keep reiterating it.”
-Rob Stone

Ah, yet another weak-minded and defeated lie. I am absolutely for equality of opportunity in our society, and if you had bothered to read my posts you would have understood that. Please see previous posts.

“No. It is a FACT that the bulk of our legal system has been devised from a male point of view (i.e., by men). Unless you can prove that the bulk of our laws are written from a female point of view or from a neutral point of view, which you can't, you are wrong.”
-Rob Stone

Another claim without any proof whatsoever. Most of our laws are written from what you call a “neutral” point of view and have been required to be ever since at least 1868 with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. See in case you need another lesson on the Constitution that’s the amendment which makes sure we all have equal rights.

Oy vey! Really? You don't know what a male of point of view is and how it is different from a female one? Are you really that ignorant?”
-Rob Stone

Apparently, how about you stop hiding behind more name calling and explain how a “male point of view” is different than laws written from a “female point of view”. Still waiting…

“Here is an example of a law based on a male point of view: From the original XIV amendment (section 2): "Representatives shall … is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or …r of such male citizens shall bear … number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
-Rob Stone

Really? One example is it? That doesn't say much for arguing the majority are written from a male point of view. At the time of your one example only male citizens over 21 were able to vote. This law has less to do with a law written “from the male perspective” and more to do with who could vote at the time. If you wanted to argue that the law only allowing men to vote was written from a “male perspective” you’d probably be right but what does that have to do with the hundreds of thousands of other laws on the books in this country? You argued most of our laws are written by men from a “male point of view”. What does this mean and if it does make society bias against women, how? One example of a law written to favor only men does not prove most of our laws are written from a “male point of view” and this somehow oppresses women. You’re running away from a point again.

“You say men don't start wars even though the people who start the wars are men.”
-Rob Stone

Except for Cleopatra, Boudicca, Matilda, Queen Elizabeth I, Joan of Arc, Margaret Thatcher, etc, etc. And that's just the Western World. So does feminism choose to forget these women existed when it’s convenient to blame war on men or is it just your ignorance of history I’m arguing against?

“You are pretending that the lawyers that wrote our laws and the politicians that started the wars are just coincidentally male and that being male had no part of it.”
-Rob Stone

Yes I am, because I’m not a sexist like you. Ridiculous, absurd, rubbish? Wow, a quite convincing argument on your part. Again, what exactly did being male have to do with it Rob?

Rob Stone

"what percentage of the male to female pay gap is due to discrimination against women? Post the number with a source . . . Again; the AAUW study said there is a 6.6% gap that’s unexplained by any measured factor(s). "

You are WRONG. The AAUW study clearly states that it is 5% one year after graduation and 12% 10 years after. PAGE 3. Had you actually read it you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself by demanding that I post what you claim you already read and what I've already posted.

I am no longer going to engage in this petty game. I've posted the study and I've made my points about it. I am no longer going to REPEAT myself and I'm no longer going to answer questions I've already answered. If you want to know something then LOOK IT UP YOURSELF.

"God, this is fun watching you run from facts."--David Jackson

I'm bored of you lying and pretending that I haven't posted the same damned FACTS over and over again.

"At the time of your one example only male citizens over 21 were able to vote."--David Jackson

Wow. You are really starting to get the hang of this.

Not only were only male citizens over 21 able to vote, but only male citizens were allowed to hold office. And pass laws. So only males were writing and passing laws. Hence: laws from a male point of view.

I know it can get complicated but I don't know how to make it any simpler. I blame my logical point of view.

"One example is it? That doesn't say much for arguing the majority are written from a male point of view."--David Jackson

You ask for me to provide examples. I did. Now you whine because I only provided one (as if the Constitution didn't matter much).

Here's another example: any time a laws says "he," or "his," referring to a person, then it is clearly reflecting a male point of view. Like Article I, Section 2 of the same Constitution. And the other 48 instances in the document.

Here are more:

1. In Maryland, a woman cannot go through her husband’s pockets while he is sleeping. Not even if she really wants a piece of gum.

2. In Vermont, a woman must obtain written permission from her husband if she wishes to wear false teeth. Because women really lead with their teeth in wanton, uncontrolled sexuality.

3. In Tucson, Arizona, women are not allowed to wear pants. No word on the stance on booty shorts or thongs.

4. In Carrizozo, New Mexico, it is illegal for a woman to appear unshaven in public. Rejoice, razor industry, rejoice!

5. In Dyersburg, Tennessee, it is illegal for a woman to call a man on a date. I don’t want to live in a world where equal-opportunity drunk dialing isn’t free to all.

6. In Carmel, New York, women may not wear high heels within the city limits. They are obviously just protecting their citizens, as this move effectively disqualifies the city from ever letting a “Sex and the City” sequel to be shot in their town. Good move, Carmel!

7. In Michigan, a woman isn’t allowed to cut her hair without her husband’s permission. But what if her husband cuts it for her?
http://ecosalon.com/7-stupid-laws-against-women/

And let's not forget about the attempts to force women to undergo ultrasounds and transvaginal probes for exercising their Constitutional rights.

"Except for Cleopatra, Boudicca, Matilda, Queen Elizabeth I, Joan of Arc, Margaret Thatcher, etc, etc."--David Jackson

I vividly remember a picture of Margaret Thatcher with her fatigues on and shooting at those Argentines. And another one of her in a tank. And what about the famous painting of Elizabeth shooting arrows at the Spanish ships? Those six women really created the realities of war. Oh, and I believe all those instances were against forces led my men with forces composed of men.

Sitting at a desk or in a palace while others are fighting and dying doesn't count as creating reality. Joan probably did a little fighting but she isn't a really good example since she heard voices.

"“You are pretending that the lawyers that wrote our laws and the politicians that started the wars are just coincidentally male and that being male had no part of it.”
-Rob Stone
"Yes I am"--David Jackson

So men wrote the constitution and created the law that only men can be elected to office and write laws and that's not sexist, according to you. But I'm sexist because I pointed out that men created a system where only men could write the rules. You are like a meta-sexist.

David Jackson

“You are WRONG. The AAUW study clearly states that it is 5% one year after graduation and 12% 10 years after. PAGE 3.”
-Rob Stone

Wow, just wow. The 6.6% was overall if you remember your own source. Was this due to discrimination? Um, no. It says these gaps are “unexplained” by the measured factors of the study and it then makes the jump that due to them being unexplained it must be discrimination. It can’t be “unexplained” and “discrimination” at the same time. The AAUW spokeswoman even agrees with me on this if you ever bothered to read my counterpoint to this same old argument you keep posting as if it were valid. Still waiting on that evidence…

“I'm bored of you lying and pretending that I haven't posted the same damned FACTS over and over again.”
-Rob Stone

I’m well aware you’ve posted the same thing over and over again. I have countered it over and over again and you think if you just keep posting it I’ll eventually forget it’s already been refuted. That’s not how arguments work, but whatever I’m having fun. One day you’ll learn to respond to the counterpoints and we will have a grown up discussion. Until then it seems we will continue with the ‘no I’m right because you’re a bully, and a bigot, and a sexist, whaaa’ style of argument you follow.

“Not only were only male citizens over 21 able to vote, but only male citizens were allowed to hold office. And pass laws. So only males were writing and passing laws. Hence: laws from a male point of view.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, yeah, and as stated, and yet again you failed to respond to, other than the ONE law barring females from voting and holding office what exactly does this “male point of view” do?

“You ask for me to provide examples. I did. Now you whine because I only provided one (as if the Constitution didn't matter much).”
-Rob Stone

You said our “laws” are written from a male point of view. Do we need a lesson on the difference between plural and singular?

“Here are more: 1-7……”
-Rob Stone

Oh yeah? IF any of these laws were actually enforced (and they are not) what do they do to women that’s more unjust than laws unfairly affecting men? Men are forced to pay nearly half of their income to ex-wives, regardless of wrongdoing on the woman's parts (often called "no-fault" alimony). She could commit adultery and beat her husband or kids, and none of it will influence the court's decision. In child custody law, 85% to 90% of child custody awards go to the women in divorces, and a woman can simply accuse her husband of sexual or physical abuse (or simply express a fear of it) and win a restraining order forcing him away from his home and children, without even a hearing where evidence has to be presented. In fact, most divorce lawyers will advise a woman to do this, because those who do not can be sued for legal malpractice. Oh, then there is registration for Selective Service, you know, the law that says men have to register with the federal government in case a war ever gets bad enough they can legally force you to go even if you didn’t want to join any of the services, and women DONT. Wow, are these laws written from the “male point of view”? Hmm, it’s like you can find examples of laws written to benefit men and women if you want to find them. Let’s cut the BS and get back to your original claim; that our laws are written from a “male point of view” and this is somehow unfair to women. What is this great “male point of view” that infects our laws in this country and what does it do to women?

“And let's not forget about the attempts to force women to undergo ultrasounds and transvaginal probes for exercising their Constitutional rights.”
-Rob Stone

Ah yes, the “constitutional right” to kill their own children, I keep forgetting about that part of the Constitution. Where is that in the document again? It must be nice to be a woman, if you’re a man and kill a child inside a woman they send you to prison. That law must have been written from a male point of view huh Rob? And if you’re arguing that a woman about to have a developing body, and supporting tissues, removed from her uterus through her vagina with a series of metal and plastic instruments is somehow being unduly subjected to an invasive medical procedure at the hands of men, because there is a law saying she must have an ultrasound and/or trans-vaginal probe to determine the exact stage of fetal development before the abortion, you need to a trip back to reality.

“Those six women really created the realities of war. Oh, and I believe all those instances were against forces led my men with forces composed of men.”
-Rob Stone

So? Since they were women and it’s men that are responsible for the “realities of war” why were they involved in wars when in charge of their countries or movements? Shouldn’t their people have been at peace under their rule? I vividly remember you stating “men are responsible for the realities of war” yet there are women who have sent and taken their people to war. Funny it seems gender doesn’t matter when you’re in a position of national leadership and there is a war huh? Or is it still “men’s fault” just because???

“So men wrote the constitution and created the law that only men can be elected to office and write laws and that's not sexist, according to you. But I'm sexist because I pointed out that men created a system where only men could write the rules. You are like a meta-sexist.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, men wrote a lot of laws in keeping with the norms of their times. They still do, even all the ones that don’t affect men any differently than women. Women write similar laws. Who wrote the laws saying women could vote and hold office? You’re a sexist because you actually believe that men are “responsible for the realities of war” (and not the national leaders that declare war, some of which have and are women) and that our laws are written from a “male point of view” even though you haven’t defined exactly what that is or how it impacts women unjustly.

Let’s sum this up.
1) You cannot name a percentage of any pay gap that is the result of discrimination against women with any accompanying source that hasn’t itself admitted its only evidence is “unexplained”, yet you claim you and feminism are right to say discrimination against women causes measurable illegitimate pay disparity.
2) You blame the male sex for war or it’s “realities” while ignoring female national leaders who have taken or ruled over their nation while at war, yet claim you’re not sexist.
3) You claim that our laws our written from a “male point of view” but can’t explain what that means or show how it negatively impacts women, yet claim it’s an example of injustice.
So far all that’s been done here is support every claim I, Steve, and the original author of the article, made when arguing how feminism gets a bad reputation. Keep it up, you’re only digging the hole deeper.

Rob Stone

"what exactly does this “male point of view” do?"--David Jackson

Creates a system of male-oriented rules and laws like only men able to hold office and only men making laws. It's called a patriarchy. Duh. Do you really need to be schooled like a child on this?

"You said our “laws” are written from a male point of view. Do we need a lesson on the difference between plural and singular? "--David Jackson

Apparently we need a lesson on paying attention. Whether or not a law is enforced, it is a law written my men (from a male point of view) and represents an oppression of women. There are more, some enforced and others not.

When you get what you ask for you dismiss it because it isn't what you want to see. Laughable.

"Ah yes, the “constitutional right” to kill their own children"--David Jackson

Another example of getting what you ask for and not liking reality.

Let's sum this up:

You don't think that they legal system MOSTLY written and devised my men represents a male point of view because their gender is simply a coincidence. Women have nothing to complain about. They have always been treated as equals. You don't know what a male point of view is.

You don't think women deserve the same opportunities as men in the military.

You think men haven't mostly created the wars in human history. It's just a coincidence that 99.99999% of all leaders and fighters were men.

You don't like reality.

Until you acknowldedge reality I am through acknowledging your fiction.

David Jackson

“Creates a system of male-oriented rules and laws like only men able to hold office and only men making laws. It's called a patriarchy. Duh. Do you really need to be schooled like a child on this?”
-Rob Stone

No, I’m too busy attempting to hold a conversation with a child. This patriarchy, HOW is it unjustly affecting women? Women have had equal rights for some time now Rob. You keep making claims with no logic behind them.

“Apparently we need a lesson on paying attention. Whether or not a law is enforced, it is a law written my men (from a male point of view) and represents an oppression of women. There are more, some enforced and others not.”
-Rob Stone

And again you failed to answer my question, even while claiming I have an attention problem. What do they do to women that’s more unjust than laws unfairly affecting men? There are examples of oppression of men in our legal system as well, I mentioned them and you seem to want to pretend they don’t exist as if you are inventing your own reality. If you can’t answer questions you surrender any credibility for your argument.

"Ah yes, the “constitutional right” to kill their own children"--David Jackson
“Another example of getting what you ask for and not liking reality.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, yeah, only you and those of your delusional ilk see that in the Constitution. An alternate reality you can’t even defend. Waiting for you to site that in the Constitution as well. What's the matter you cant find it?

“You don't think that they legal system MOSTLY written and devised my men represents a male point of view because their gender is simply a coincidence. Women have nothing to complain about. They have always been treated as equals. You don't know what a male point of view is.”
-Rob Stone

Considering our laws are based upon the principle we are all equal under the law and you have yet to explain how women are unjustly affected by our laws, YES. There has been a time in history that every race, color, and creed has been marginalized by another group. Unless it’s happening to them right now, no they in fact don’t have anything to complain about. This is no longer the days where women can’t vote or work outside the home.

“You think men haven't mostly created the wars in human history. It's just a coincidence that 99.99999% of all leaders and fighters were men.”
-Rob Stone

Considering 99.99999% of men were never the leaders who made the call to go to war, yes, it is a coincidence, a coincidence that goes along with being a national leader and has nothing to do with gender (as evidence of women rulers also going to war shows). Only a sexist who apparently lacks a basic understanding of math sees it otherwise.

“Until you acknowldedge reality I am through acknowledging your fiction.”
-Rob Stone

So until I agree with what you say is “reality” you don’t want to talk. How enlightened and tolerant of you. Spoken like a true bigot.

Rob Stone

"No, I’m too busy attempting to hold a conversation with a child."--David Jackson

Dude, talking to yourself is the first sign of something seriously wrong. If you need help, just reach out.

"Waiting for you to site that in the Constitution as well."--David Jackson

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html

"Considering our laws are based upon the principle we are all equal under the law and you have yet to explain how women are unjustly affected by our laws"--David Jackson

That's what I've been doing and, apparently, you have not been reading or comprehending. Until you do, I am not going to bicker since you have no interest in honestly discussing these issues.

"a coincidence that goes along with being a national leader and has nothing to do with gender"--David Jackson

You think that gender has nothing to do with national leaders throughout history. This is not an insult, but an observation: you are clueless. Do you understand the whole monarchical hierarchy? Ever played with a deck of cards (a full deck)?

Again, this is futile and I, like you, am tired of having a conversation with a child.

"So until I agree with what you say is “reality” you don’t want to talk."--David Jackson

Until you recognize the concept of reality. Enjoy the summer. Be good to the women in your life.

David Jackson

Roe V Wade ruled that blanket laws outlawing abortion violated right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment because they didn’t take into account the stage of pregnancy that a person has a right to abortion until viability. It under no circumstances authorizes or states the 14th Amendment gives a woman a right to kill her own unborn child. Viability, and the scientific ability to accurately determine individual development in the womb, has changed drastically since 1973.

“That's what I've been doing and, apparently, you have not been reading or comprehending. Until you do, I am not going to bicker since you have no interest in honestly discussing these issues.”
-Rob Stone

I’ve asked you several times to describe how women are still unjustly oppressed by society. You have either clung to the unexplained pay gaps in a single study or referenced the past when women were not allowed to vote. You haven’t proven anything here in the 21st century.

“You think that gender has nothing to do with national leaders throughout history. This is not an insult, but an observation: you are clueless. Do you understand the whole monarchical hierarchy? Ever played with a deck of cards (a full deck)?”
-Rob Stone

Yes, and being labeled clueless by you is not really a concern, nor are your infantile child jokes. You think that gender is a factor in creating or going to war as you have claimed men have “created the realities of war”. I have shown you women rulers who have taken (or otherwise participated in) their countries to war, disproving this is a male only issue. Yet you continue to argue that men in general are responsible for war. It’s a historical fact that national leaders or rulers (regardless of sex/gender) decide to go to war, NOT the general male population. This is regardless of the fact most male leaders have been men, the bottom line is when placed in the position women behave much the same way as evidence of female leaders sending their soldiers to war. Blaming men for the realities of warfare is blatant sexism.

“Until you recognize the concept of reality. Enjoy the summer. Be good to the women in your life.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, sure thing. I have no problem being good to the women in my life. They are all grown adults who take on the world in their own right and don’t blame me, or men in general, for the bumps in their life’s path. How are the immature little girls whining about their lives treating you this summer?

PS: Reality is where facts outweigh emotions and issues have to be resolved with workable solutions not idealistic banter. Also, to participate in an adult discussion in reality, you make a point and if someone counters that point you either concede or counter their counterpoint. You don't just simply repeat yourself over and over again, it makes you look dim. Hope this helps.

Rob Stone

"You haven’t proven anything here in the 21st century."--David Jackson

http://www.sagepub.com/healeystudy5/articles/Ch3/Contemporarysexism.pdf

I assume you will dismiss these three scientific studies because you won't like the results.

"Blaming men for the realities of warfare is blatant sexism."--David Jackson

Blaming women is both dishonest and sexist.

Lying about the historical fact that men have created and fought in the vast majority of wars is absurd and petty. Lying about the fact that men have led THE VAST MAJORITY of nations and armies throughout history because men made the rules, is laughable.

David, acting like men haven't been in charge for human history is silly. We both know it as well as we know the Earth is round. I know you get defensive whenever white people are at fault or men are at fault or straight white men are at fault, but no one is blaming you personally.

I'm a straight white male and I have no problem admitting that most of the worlds problems have been caused my men and most of America's problems have been caused by straight, white men. Not all because of gender or race or sexual orientation, but the discrimination has been. And I will not debate the existence of reality.

David Jackson

“I assume you will dismiss these three scientific studies because you won't like the results.”
-Rob Stone

No, but I will ask where they have proof women are getting paid less than men simply because they are women.

"Blaming men for the realities of warfare is blatant sexism."--David Jackson
“Blaming women is both dishonest and sexist.”
-Rob Stone

I never blamed women, nor did I ever lie, care to prove it? I also never argued that the majority of leadership throughout history has not been done by men. I did however correct your sexist remark and blamed politicians and national leaders for war instead of men in general. I pointed out that both women and men in such positions started the wars in history, NOT the general population of men (or women) and stated to simply tie it to gender is sexism. Men AND women in positions of national leadership send armies to war, simply because most have been men does not mean “men are responsible for the realities of war”. Reality is that leaders decide to go to war, not a gender.

“I know you get defensive whenever white people are at fault or men are at fault or straight white men are at fault, but no one is blaming you personally.”
-Rob Stone

Some more race and gender based judgment. Generalizing an entire race, sex, gender, or sexual orientation, into being responsible for something is sexist/racist. This is why feminism gets a bad rap and rightfully so; it tries to blame races and a gender for the ills of the world instead of the societal positions that actually cause the problems.

“I'm a straight white male and I have no problem admitting that most of the worlds problems have been caused my men and most of America's problems have been caused by straight, white men.”
-Rob Stone

That sounds like someone who has drank the cool-aid of extremist left wing indoctrination, which includes the majority of feminism. Before you dismiss that as a typical “right wing” attack; there is one thing that has not been answered by you (or anyone else who holds a similar opinion) in regard to keeping that philosophy. If 99% of straight, white, men have never written a law, started a war, oppressed a woman, directly profited from a racist law, etc, etc. why is it you want to blame straight white men for most of the world’s/America’s problems and not the bureaucrat politicians, aristocratic lawyers, and other megalomaniac social leaders who do write laws, start wars, oppress women, discriminate based on race, or generally cause the world’s problems?

Let me put this in perspective. If national data for crime shows the majority of crime in America is committed by black males, can we then claim that black males are responsible for crime in this country? After all, most crime is committed by them. NO, we cant, because the majority of black males don’t commit crime! And thus blaming black men in general is f@cking racist. Perhaps it’s thugs of all races and genders who are responsible for crime huh? So why is it that if the majority of straight, white, men, don’t start wars, write laws, oppress women, etc. it’s somehow acceptable to claim “the world’s and America’s problems have been caused by straight, white men”? Guess what, it’s NOT acceptable because it’s f@cking sexist and racist.

“ And I will not debate the existence of reality.”
-Rob Stone

I revert back to my last post to define how this discussion relates to reality.

Rob Stone

"why is it you want to blame straight white men for most of the world’s/America’s problems"--David Jackson

Here is where you are being dishonest and failing to grasp the concept.

I don't blame all straight white men. I blame the people responsible, most of whom are straight white men who act from the perspective of straight white men for the benefit of straight white men. The system was created to favor straight white men. Why?

David Jackson

“I don’t blame straight white men. I blame the people responsible, most of whom are straight white men who act from the perspective of straight white men for the benefit of straight white men. The system was created to favor straight white men. Why?”
-Rob Stone

You now claim you don’t blame straight white men but stated the “the system was created to favor straight white men.” You also have stated: “I'm a straight white male and I have no problem admitting that most of the world’s problems have been caused my men and most of America's problems have been caused by straight, white men.”, “You don't think that they legal system MOSTLY written and devised my men represents a male point of view because their gender is simply a coincidence.” “You say men don't start wars even though the people who start the wars are men. You are pretending that the lawyers that wrote our laws and the politicians that started the wars are just coincidentally male and that being male had no part of it. Ridiculous.”, and “Throughout human history, MEN have created the realities of war. That's not sexist, it's fact.” –Rob Stone
When you said those things, you blamed men, specifically straight, white, men by your later categorization, for most of the world’s problems.

The people responsible are not only “straight, white, men” but they are all politically connected, rich, and most of the time born into such an environment (wealthy usually with a politically connected family) which protects their political connections and wealth. Few are self made, or have ever been a produced good or service outside of being a lawyer and/or politician. Now regardless if the majority of such peoples’ race or gender, does this sound like the majority of straight, white, men to you? Or does it sound like a slim minority of ANY race and gender including straight, white, men? This is why I made the argument, straight, white, men, do not write our laws or create wars, politicians do.

The system was in fact NOT created to favor straight white men, it was created to benefit those in power staying in power. It just so happens most in power were straight, white, men, however that does not make the common straight, white, man in any way responsible for, or a beneficiary of, the powers that be decisions.

The powers that be will always pander their rhetoric towards who or what demographic of the population will support their power. Throughout much of American history the biggest voting population has been straight, white, employed, men roughly between 30 and 70. Now that other groups are becoming bigger players in the election game, and there is less and less disparity between the average Democrat and Republican running for the same office, other groups are being pandered to by “the system”. But don’t mistake that for some sort of achievement of equality. Telling certain groups what they want to hear maybe how you buy votes, but it rarely benefits said people, or the people as a whole, in the long run. The short answer is that the system is run by politicians who want to keep the power they have and gain more if possible. Going after the "straight white man's vote" (when he is the majority of the voting population) has long been the way to get the majority of the people you need convinced to vote for you to do so, but it’s not a “for us by us” system just for heterosexual white guys. Those in power are still the only ones with the power, and the average straight, white, guy, is no better off than he was before.

I submit to you that the average straight, white, male, American has more in common with the average homosexual, brown, female, American than either have with the average American political leader. Claiming “the system” as you called it has anything to do with sex and/or gender is sexist, racist, and does more to divide us as American citizens than it does to bring us together.

Rob Stone

"When you said those things, you blamed men, specifically straight, white, men by your later categorization, for most of the world’s problems."--David Jackson

David, the vast majority of PEOPLE who have created our legal and social systems have been straight white men. In Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, non-white straight men.

See if you can grasp this: The people who devised the system have devised it to the benefit of themselves and those like them. Those people happen to be straight men (white in the West).

The realities of war have been created by those who have fought most of the wars and developed the vast majority of tactics, rules, weaponry, etc. The vast majority of those people have been men.

If women created the realities of war, then women would have no problem passing whatever tests were necessary to be in the infantry. You yourself claim that today's military has been devised in a way that suits men and not women. Well, that's because men have devised the realities of war.

"The people responsible are not only “straight, white, men” but they are all politically connected, rich, and most of the time born into such an environment (wealthy usually with a politically connected family) which protects their political connections and wealth."--David Jackson

The vast majority of whom are straight, white, men. Why is that?

"This is why I made the argument, straight, white, men, do not write our laws or create wars, politicians do."--David Jackson

Straight, white, male politicians and they're politicians in large part because they are straight, white, men (except for the ones in the closet). 42 straight men have been president and 41 were white (James Buchanan might have been gay, but certainly not out). The vast majority of senators are straight, white, men. The vast majority of members of Congress throughout history have been straight, white, men. Coincidence?

"The system was in fact NOT created to favor straight white men, it was created to benefit those in power staying in power. It just so happens most in power were straight, white, men,"--David Jackson

It just so happens because men have historically oppressed women, whites have historically oppressed people of color, and straights have historically oppressed gays. It isn't just happenstance.

"however that does not make the common straight, white, man in any way responsible for, or a beneficiary of, the powers that be decisions."--David Jackson

Never said it did. In fact, you are reiterating what I previously wrote. You are getting defensive because you are a straight white man. I never claimed that all straight white men are to blame (being one myself). But the people who are to blame are straight white men.

"Claiming “the system” as you called it has anything to do with sex and/or gender is sexist, racist, and does more to divide us as American citizens than it does to bring us together."--David Jackson

If you think the "system" doesn't have anything to do with sex, gender, and race then you are very naive.

David Jackson

“David, the vast majority of PEOPLE who have created our legal and social systems have been straight white men. In Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, non-white straight men.”
-Rob Stone

See if you can grasp this: The people who have created our legal and social systems have been rich, politically connected, lawyers, who have less in common than those in society they share a race and gender with than other rich, politically connected, lawyers.

“If women created the realities of war, then women would have no problem passing whatever tests were necessary to be in the infantry. You yourself claim that today's military has been devised in a way that suits men and not women. Well, that's because men have devised the realities of war.”
-Rob Stone

F@cking BINGO. No, Rob. The “realities of war” that the modern American military prepares for, specifically for ground combat, is that we win with the fewest casualties possible and leave nobody behind! This means, ideally the smallest member of a ground patrol is capable of carrying the largest unconscious member. Soldiers die, soldiers get wounded, and you can’t count on only one or two specific individuals to do something vital. The tests needed for ground combat need to reflect we will NOT leave a Soldier to die or fall into enemy hands just so weaker people get to play Army. Men did not devise women being generally physically weaker than they are, and men and women who care about how many Americans come back home alive in one piece devised the “tests” or “standards” that ground combat soldiers are capable of, things like climbing over compound walls unassisted and medevacing their own injured personnel. What “realities of war” or “tests for the infantry” would be different if women were in charge?

“Never said it did. In fact, you are reiterating what I previously wrote. You are getting defensive because you are a straight white man. I never claimed that all straight white men are to blame (being one myself). But the people who are to blame are straight white men.”
-Rob Stone

You’re running away. Yes, yes you did claim straight, white, men are to blame, it takes nothing more than a glance to pasts posts to prove this. YOU made this about race and gender when you started bringing the race and gender of who sends armies to war and writes laws into the discussion. My entire point has been race and gender have little to nothing to do with what political leaders do. If not all of those to blame are straight, white, men, why mention their race and gender at all? Isn’t it the position of power that corrupts and not the sex and/or gender of who that occupies said position?

“It just so happens because men have historically oppressed women, whites have historically oppressed people of color, and straights have historically oppressed gays. It isn't just happenstance.”
-Rob Stone

Yes it is, unless you are racist and sexist against white males. What percentage of whites, straights, and men have oppressed women, people of color, and gays? Was it all of them? Some of them? In all cultures or just Americas? How many???

“If you think the "system" doesn't have anything to do with sex, gender, and race then you are very naive.”
-Rob Stone

Well there’s a thunderingly sound and logical proof there. Prove it Rob. What about it, here now in 2013, is beneficial to only straight, white, men?

Rob Stone

"The people who have created our legal and social systems have been rich, politically connected, lawyers"--David Jackson

Who were male and white. That's why even the original constitution was written for the beneifit of white men. Only white men could vote and hold office regardless of whether or not they were rich, politically connected lawyers.

"What “realities of war” or “tests for the infantry” would be different if women were in charge?"--David Jackson

Equal opportunities for all.

"Yes, yes you did claim straight, white, men are to blame"--David Jackson

Where did I blame ALL straight, white, men? Nowhere. Don't put words in my mouth because I'm not saying what you want to hear.

"Yes it is, unless you are racist and sexist against white males."--David Jackson

According to you, it is racist to point out racists and racism. According to you, it is sexist to point out sexists or sexims.

You deny that there is a history of racism and sexism and heterosexism. It's called basic history, David. There is a reason why women are denied the same opportunities that men are (past and present). There is a reason why people of color are often treated differently by the legal system. There is a reason why gay people are treated differently than straight people in many places. Descrimination and bigotry contine and their historical effects linger. To deny that is willful ignorance.

David Jackson

“Who were male and white. That's why even the original constitution was written for the beneifit of white men. Only white men could vote and hold office regardless of whether or not they were rich, politically connected lawyers.”
-Rob Stone

Wrong. The Constitution (there has not been a new edition ratified), was written in a time where the concept of being a person was quite different than today. The ideas it espouses however are universal to who is considered and individual American, something we have improved upon. Oh, and back then you had to own land to vote too, not just be a white male. That means there where white males who couldn’t vote and thus it was NOT written to benefit only "white men". Forgot about that barrier because it wasn’t based upon race or sex huh Rob? (psst, it’s basic history) Don’t worry; we’ll reform you of your indoctrinated bigotry yet.

You still refuse to directly respond this: The people who have created our legal and social systems have been rich, politically connected, lawyers, who have less in common than those in society they share a race and gender with than they do with other rich, politically connected, lawyers. I again submit to you that the average straight, white, male, American has more in common with the average homosexual, brown, female, American than either one of them have with the average American political leader. Claiming “the system” as you call it has anything to do with sex and/or gender is sexist, racist, and does more to divide us as American citizens than it does to bring us together. What do you say to that and why?

"What “realities of war” or “tests for the infantry” would be different if women were in charge?"--David Jackson
“Equal opportunities for all.”
-Rob Stone

So you are now claiming that if women were in charge of “the realities of war” as you originally put it, there would be “equal opportunities for all” in the military but men are incapable of this as evidence of history? But you’re not sexist against men… What gives women this greater capacity for institutional equality of opportunity?

“Where did I blame ALL straight, white, men? Nowhere. Don't put words in my mouth because I'm not saying what you want to hear.”
-Rob Stone

Not nowhere, right here:
“I'm a straight white male and I have no problem admitting that most of the world’s problems have been caused my men and most of America's problems have been caused by straight, white men.”
“You don't think that they legal system MOSTLY written and devised my men represents a male point of view because their gender is simply a coincidence.”
“You say men don't start wars even though the people who start the wars are men. You are pretending that the lawyers that wrote our laws and the politicians that started the wars are just coincidentally male and that being male had no part of it. Ridiculous.”
“Throughout human history, MEN have created the realities of war. That's not sexist, it's fact.”
“Lying about the historical fact that men have created and fought in the vast majority of wars is absurd and petty. Lying about the fact that men have led THE VAST MAJORITY of nations and armies throughout history because men made the rules, is laughable.”
–Rob Stone, quotes taken from below.

“According to you, it is racist to point out racists and racism. According to you, it is sexist to point out sexists or sexims.”
-Rob Stone

I don’t and claiming I do so is a lie. It is sexist to blame the “realities of war” on men. It is racist bigoted against heterosexuals to blame “straight, white, men” for most of the world’s problems.

“You deny that there is a history of racism and sexism and heterosexism.”
-Rob Stone

No, I deny that history is an excuse for several of your political ideas in the present. For someone who denied women leaders ever sent their people to war to lecture me about basic history is quite humorous though.

“Descrimination and bigotry contine and their historical effects linger. To deny that is willful ignorance.”
-Rob Stone

To claim that something exists just because you claim it so, and to deny it is ignorance, is absolutely arrogant. I never claimed that some bigotry doesn’t exist. I refute your claims that the "system" is set up to benefit straight, white, males. Prove it Rob, you have been asked now more than once.

Rob Stone

"Wrong. The Constitution (there has not been a new edition ratified), was written in a time where the concept of being a person was quite different than today."--David Jackson

No, you are wrong. The Constitution has been amended. We no longer have slaves and women can vote. Yes, the concept of being a person was quite different. People of color were not seen as equals. Nor were women. That's not because rich lawyers wrote it, it's because sexist, racist rich white men wrote it. It is history and I am not going to debate what everyone has known for many decades.

"I again submit to you that the average straight, white, male, American has more in common with the average homosexual, brown, female, American than either one of them have with the average American political leader."--David Jackson

I have never disagreed with that. I agree. However, the Constitution never banned non-rich, non-lawyers, and non-politicians from anything.

"Claiming “the system” as you call it has anything to do with sex and/or gender is sexist, racist"--David Jackson

Denying that the system isn't sexist and racist is nothing more that willful ignorance. I am not going to back down to your dishonest rhetoric. You obviously don't understand what sexism and racism are or how to discuss these issues.

"What gives women this greater capacity for institutional equality of opportunity?"--David Jackson

What prevents some men from not being able to recognize unequal opportunity?

"“Where did I blame ALL straight, white, men? Nowhere."--Stone
"“I'm a straight white male and I have no problem admitting that MOST of the world’s problems have been caused my men and MOST of America's problems have been caused by straight, white men.”--Stone
"“You don't think that they legal system MOSTLY written and devised my men represents a male point of view because their gender is simply a coincidence.”--Stone
“You say men don't start wars even though the people who start the wars are men. You are pretending that the lawyers that wrote our laws and the politicians that started the wars are just coincidentally male and that being male had no part of it. Ridiculous.”--Stone
Nowhere above do I blame ALL men for anything.
“Throughout human history, MEN have created the realities of war. That's not sexist, it's fact.”--Stone
Nowhere above do I blame ALL men for anything.
“Lying about the historical fact that men have created and fought in the vast majority of wars is absurd and petty. Lying about the fact that men have led THE VAST MAJORITY of nations and armies throughout history because men made the rules, is laughable.”--Stone

Do you understand the word MOST and the difference between MOST and ALL? You just admitted that you lied, David. I am sick of your dishonest, craven whining and lying.

"I don’t and claiming I do so is a lie. It is sexist to blame the “realities of war” on men. It is racist bigoted against heterosexuals to blame “straight, white, men” for most of the world’s problems."--David Jackson

You don't even see the contradictions in your own statements.

"For someone who denied women leaders ever sent their people to war"--David Jackson

Lie.

"I refute your claims that the "system" is set up to benefit straight, white, males. Prove it Rob, you have been asked now more than once."--David Jackson

You refuse to believe in reality, David. Why did there need to be amendments to the Constitution protecting a woman's right to vote and not enslaving people of color? Why do women and people of color continue to have a more difficult time than white men in our economy? It isn't because women and people of color invented the system.

But, why bother? You are blind to the obvious sexism, racism, and heterosexism that existed in the past and continues to exist today. You are what is wrong with our society. Until people like you recognize descrimination and care to do anything about it, it will continue.

You can whine all you want about how awful people are who complain because they aren't treated equally but that's because you lack empathy.

David Jackson

“No, you are wrong. The Constitution has been amended. We no longer have slaves and women can vote. Yes, the concept of being a person was quite different. People of color were not seen as equals. Nor were women. That's not because rich lawyers wrote it, it's because sexist, racist rich white men wrote it. It is history and I am not going to debate what everyone has known for many decades.”
-Rob Stone

Your racism and sexism continues. People of color were not seen as equals, neither were women, neither were straight, white, men who didn’t own land ROB! White men couldn’t vote or hold office either; they had to own land first. That’s historical fact; you don’t want to debate that because it flies in the face of your racist, sexist, revision of history you want to fall back on when proven wrong. Sorry, but the system isn’t set up in favor of straight, white, men like radical feminists and leftist would like to pretend. Also, it’s still the “original” Constitution that has been amended; there is not a new constitution.

" “I have never disagreed with that. I agree. However, the Constitution never banned non-rich, non-lawyers, and non-politicians from anything.”
-Rob Stone

What did it ban women and homosexuals and people of color from doing? Or did it just not mention them when you think it should have? Kind of like when it didn’t mention voting as a right and there were white, heterosexual, men who also couldn’t vote right along with women, homosexuals, and people of color huh Rob?

Denying that the system isn't sexist and racist is nothing more that willful ignorance. I am not going to back down to your dishonest rhetoric. You obviously don't understand what sexism and racism are or how to discuss these issues.”
-Rob Stone

Yes, I obviously don’t understand what sexism and racism are, and am being dishonest, and don’t know how to discuss these issues simply because I don’t agree with you. Not because you have shown facts proving me wrong, but simply because I disagree, and show you how there are laws unfair to men, how there have been white, heterosexual, men, not allowed for vote or hold office just like everyone else, and that women have ordered armies to war, but you get to ignore these facts.

"What gives women this greater capacity for institutional equality of opportunity?"--David Jackson
“What prevents some men from not being able to recognize unequal opportunity?”
-Rob Stone

You are now failing to answer questions and just posting questions in return. Men do recognize equal/unequal opportunity same as women. Now, given your claim that if women were in charge of “the realities of war” as you originally put it, there would be “equal opportunities for all” in the military, what gives women this greater capacity for institutional equality of opportunity? How about you own up to what you claimed and answer it this time?

“Nowhere above do I blame ALL men for anything.”
-Rob Stone

You generalized and said that men are responsible even though most men have never sat in the positions that make the decisions that you claim “men” are responsible for. Then run away from this blatant falsehood by claiming you never “blame ALL men for anything” after making the false generalization.

“You don't even see the contradictions in your own statements.”
-Rob Stone

No, no I don’t. Care to point them out instead of just claiming they exist?

"For someone who denied women leaders ever sent their people to war"-Me
“Lie.”
-Rob Stone

Lie? Again your credibility…not so hot:

“…Those six women really created the realities of war. Oh, and I believe all those instances were against forces led my men with forces composed of men. Sitting at a desk or in a palace while others are fighting and dying doesn't count as creating reality.”
Rob Stone 1:27pm June 4th

“You say men don't start wars even though the people who start the wars are men.”
-Rob Stone 2:15pm June 3rd

"Lol, are you actually implying war is men’s fault?"-Me
“I didn't think it was an implication; I thought it was a clear statement of fact. How many wars are the fault of women?”
-Rob Stone 10:30am May 23rd


“You refuse to believe in reality, David. Why did there need to be amendments to the Constitution protecting a woman's right to vote and not enslaving people of color? Why do women and people of color continue to have a more difficult time than white men in our economy? It isn't because women and people of color invented the system.”
-Rob Stone

Oh yes, I show that discrimination goes beyond race and sex, and immediately I’m accused of not seeing reality. Your proof is again only “it just is!” or “it’s just reality and I’m not going to debate that with you”. How articulate Rob.

Why did there need to be amendments to the Constitution protecting a woman's right to vote and not enslaving people of color? For the EXACT same reason there needed to be amendments to the Constitution protecting white, heterosexual, men’s right to vote even when they didn’t own land. It isn’t because the average straight, white, male, designed “the system” either. So what does this have to do with sexism and racism exactly?

Why do women and people of color continue to have a more difficult time than white men in our economy? Largely because less women and people of color major in viable, money making, fields of study, and spend too much time sitting in classrooms learning that it’s straight, white, men’s fault, through the “sexist, racist, control machine” when they don’t make as much money as they want, instead of being taught they have to study hard and work for every dime they will ever earn. Because people of color more often have children out of wedlock making it harder to properly provide for them, are less likely to be involved in their child’s education making sure the schools aren’t sh*t holes run by idiots, and are told by ultra-liberal educators at the colleges they go to on the dime of the taxpayer, that none of that is their own fault and it’s okay to speak in “Ebonics” instead of proper English in the professional world because it’s their “culture”, then claim discrimination when they are turned down for a job that’s given instead to someone who can articulate themselves at a collegiate reading level. People of color are also falsely lied to by “liberal/progressive” political leaders that they care for them while “conservative” political leaders don’t, and they will make up for the society’s supposed racist inequities by providing specifically for them, when in reality so called “progressives” only further subsidizes mediocrity, so nothing gets better, and they can continue to convince people they need to be voted into office to “fix” everything for generation after generation.

Sorry Rob but in reality, there are truths beyond your politically indoctrinated race and gender baiting philosophy. These truths include; white, heterosexual, men being discriminated against by the wealthy and politically connected, along with women, homosexuals, and people of color. So why do you focus on race, sex, and gender? I’ve posted my theory as to why, but you have yet to answer that for yourself…

“You are what is wrong with our society. Until people like you recognize descrimination and care to do anything about it, it will continue.”
-Rob Stone

HA! Yeah, I believe in Constitutional limits on government power, equality of opportunity for all and forced equity of outcome for none, free market economics, personal responsibility, treating other human beings like I would like to be treated, and that the average straight, white, male, American has more in common with the average homosexual, brown, female, American than either one of them have with the average American political leader. But I’m “what’s wrong with our society” Lol, sure thing Rob.

You know I do recognize discrimination, but unlike the brainwashed, disingenuous, demagogues and their ilk who gain political power through rallying people based upon race, sex, and/or gender (dividing us as Americans) I actually seek out facts, modern and historic, myself and see that discrimination knows no sexual or racial bounds. You repeatedly made claims about men, whites, and heterosexuals, that were countered with examples of heterosexuals, whites, and men, being discriminated against by the powers that be as well, yet ignored them and casually continue to claim I’m just blind to obvious sexism, racism, and heterosexism. The only thing that’s obvious is your political bias runs so deep, facts mean nothing to you. I’m afraid you’re beyond both help, and intelligent discourse, if this is the case with you.

You know what’s wrong with our society Rob? People (of ALL backgrounds) who want something for nothing, people who blame others for their failures or shortcomings, and people who believe they are entitled rewards for only doing what’s necessary to slip by. And what’s really f@cked up and wrong with our society is the political agenda that’s built around encouraging these childish believes and behaviors, telling people it isn’t their fault, their responsibility, and that they’re entitled to things they didn’t earn, just so they get voted for. I don’t lack empathy, I lack emotionally based, race, sex, and gender, divisional bullsh*t, and possess a sense of pragmatism. What I lack is a political philosophy derived from over-educated, under-experienced, self-congratulating, academics and intellectuals, who find the easiest way to rally people for political purposes, especially the young and impressionable, is rhetoric based upon their race and/or gender, producing a bunch of angry, narcissistic, hyphenated-citizens, and destroying any sense of unity as Americans as a whole. I lack this not because I’m ignorant of history, or blind to reality, but because I’m not a racist or sexist.

Rob Stone

"Your racism and sexism continues."--David Jackson

Pointing out that slave owners were racist is not racist. To deny it is only to support racism (that's what you are doing). Pointing out that denying women equal rights is sexist is not sexist. To deny it is only to support sexism (that's what you are doing).

Calling me what you are only emphasizes your racism and sexism.

"White men couldn’t vote or hold office either; they had to own land first."--David Jackson

So that's not racist and sexist since SOME white men were denied what ALL women and people of color were denied? And only white men could own land in many places (women could inherit only and, if they got (re)married, all would go to the husband). That's sexist and racist.

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment (1869) guaranteed the right to vote to men over 21 regardless of whether or not they owned land (sexist, racist). The 15th (1870) guaranteed the right to vote to only men regardless of race, color, or previous servitude, or land-owning status (sexist). Women couldn't vote until 1920.

So your attempt to deny sexism and racism simply because of the property issue is moot.

I cannot believe you refuse to admit that denying people of color rights is racist and that denying women rights is sexist.

"What did it ban women and homosexuals and people of color from doing?"--David Jackson

Is that supposed to be a joke? The Constitution bans little but it should protect the rights of everyone. It hasn't always done so.

"Kind of like when it didn’t mention voting as a right and there were white, heterosexual, men who also couldn’t vote right along with women, homosexuals, and people of color huh Rob? "--David Jackson

There is nothing in the Constitution about having to own land to vote either.

And the Constitution mentions voting as a right four times.

"Yes, I obviously don’t understand what sexism and racism are, and am being dishonest, and don’t know how to discuss these issues simply because I don’t agree with you."--David Jackson

The reason why you don't understand them, or are being dishonest, is because it is NOT RACIST to point out that not protecting the rights of people of color is racist. It is NOT SEXIST to point out that not allowing women the same rights as men is sexist. To believe otherwise is flat-out absurd.

"Men do recognize equal/unequal opportunity same as women."--David Jackson

That's no excuse and simply backs my original contention that men devised the system of opportunities.

"what gives women this greater capacity for institutional equality of opportunity? How about you own up to what you claimed and answer it this time?"--David Jackson

It's a hypothetical. Do you understand how hypotheticals work? Apparently not.

"Then run away from this blatant falsehood by claiming you never “blame ALL men for anything” after making the false generalization."--David Jackson

There you go being dishonest again. My original question was "Where did I blame ALL straight, white, men? Nowhere." (2:58 pm on Wed, Jun 19, 2013) And you cut and pasted quotes of mine, none of which blamed ALL. You can't prove your false charge because you lied about it.

And I've never DENIED that no woman has started a war. I've made it pretty clear that only a very few have and there is no evidence that they did so alone. Six or so out of thousands is hardly creating the realities of war.

The fact is that women earn less than men, on average, because the male-created system values men more than women. The fact is that people of color have a more difficult time, on average, because the white, male-created system values white over color. The fact is that gay people have been descriminated against all through history is because the male-created system marginalizes that which it doesn't understand.

"I lack this not because I’m ignorant of history, or blind to reality, but because I’m not a racist or sexist."--David Jackson

You don't seem to understand much about history and you clearly do not understand perspectives of reality that differ from yours. You are a racist because you ignore and excuse racism. You are a sexist because you ignore and excuse sexism.

You generalize and rant about everyone you don't like and disagree with but you refuse to look in the mirror and see what everyone else does.

David Jackson

“Calling me what you are only emphasizes your racism and sexism.”
-Rob Stone

Not really Rob, especially when you have yet to show I’m racist or sexist. So far all you have done is lie about me claiming “slave owners were not racist” and claiming that “denying women equal rights is not being sexist”. Neither of which I have done, but feel free to cite where I did.


“So your attempt to deny sexism and racism simply because of the property issue is moot.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, no it isn’t AT ALL! You claimed that “the system” was built around catering to “heterosexual, white, men” has been debunked by the fact ONLY those rich enough to own land were able to vote for the first 93 years of this country’s existence and has been opened up to everyone else at different points since. Bottom line, white men in general are NOT to blame, and have been the victims of non-inclusive policies along with women and minorities, even though your politics get racist and sexist votes by claiming otherwise.


“I cannot believe you refuse to admit that denying people of color rights is racist and that denying women rights is sexist.”
-Rob Stone

Ha! I didn’t, and your statement that I have proves you a boldface liar. I simply pointed out to you that white men had also been unable to legally hold office and vote for a significant portion of this country’s history. Race and sex baiting at its finest! Hold out race like bait on a hook, then when someone argues about it, scream RACIST and SEXIST BIGOT as loud as you can, attempting to drown out any facts with emotional reaction, because your argument can’t stand up to the facts. Textbook.


“Is that supposed to be a joke? The Constitution bans little but it should protect the rights of everyone. It hasn't always done so.”
-Ron Stone

Very good Mr. Stone, it should protect the rights of everyone but it hasn't always done so. Everyone includes the white, non-landowning men, who couldn’t vote or hold office along with the women and people of color. A fact you like to pretend doesn’t exist when arguing that “the system” has been built by and to support “straight, white, men”.

I continue to point out to you the wealthy and politically connected are the real culprits but you keep focusing on sex and race instead. Until you stop screaming that I’m a bigot and post some facts I’m afraid I’m not going to see it any other way.


“There is nothing in the Constitution about having to own land to vote either. And the Constitution mentions voting as a right four times.”
-Rob Stone

It didn’t always, there was a time when white men couldn’t vote or hold office. That’s again the point! The wealthy and politically connected run the show not a sex or gender Rob. Thinking that it is a sex or gender is SEXIST and RACIST.


“..... To believe otherwise is flat-out absurd."
-Rob Stone

You again missed perfectly clear sarcasm. My apologies I’ll keep if clear for you next time.


“That's no excuse and simply backs my original contention that men devised the system of opportunities.”
-Rob Stone

And what system is this? If you are going to make an argument it has to contain points not just claims. How many times must you be reminded of this? What system exists that men devised?


“It's a hypothetical. Do you understand how hypotheticals work? Apparently not.”
-Rob Stone

As a matter of fact I do. If you don’t want to back up your hypothetical argument I suggest not posting them Rob.


“There you go being dishonest again. My original question was "Where did I blame ALL straight, white, men? Nowhere." (2:58 pm on Wed, Jun 19, 2013) And you cut and pasted quotes of mine, none of which blamed ALL. You can't prove your false charge because you lied about it.
-Rob Stone

Do you understand what a generalization is? Guess what, you made one. If you’re not sure this should help: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/generalization

You claimed that war is men’s fault was a “fact” at 10:30am on May 23rd, and “the people who start the wars are men” at 2:15pm June 3rd. Pretty clear who is being dishonest here Rob.


“And I've never DENIED that no woman has started a war. I've made it pretty clear that only a very few have and there is no evidence that they did so alone. Six or so out of thousands is hardly creating the realities of war.”
-Rob Stone

The point is they were the LEADERS! Showing that when in a position of power, women send armies to war just like men, PROVING that it’s the position of power NOT the gender of who occupies it Rob! Why is this so difficult for you?


“The fact is that women earn less than men, on average, because the male-created system values men more than women.”
-Rob Stone

How does it value men more than women? Or is this going to be another classic example of Rob Stone making a claim he calls “fact” and never backs it up?
The fact really is that in general “they system” values people who show up more often, accomplish more when there, and spend more time at jobs with greater value to society, than it does people who do less of those things. Since who does which jobs is largely, if not completely, a matter of individual choice, “the system” does NOT value men more than women.


“The fact is that people of color have a more difficult time, on average, because the white, male-created system values white over color.”
-Rob Stone

Another claim with no facts. I’ll be waiting for you to produce those…
The fact really is people of color have a more difficult time, on average, because they statistically more often have children in single parent homes, are less likely to be involved in their child’s education, and too many believe the propaganda of ultra-liberal politicians and educators that tell them their life’s course isn’t their own responsibility, and if they vote for them they will be taken care of, instead of working hard in school, and at work, and rising with the opportunity. The powers that be love to keep people of color needy Rob, that way there will always be someone to make false promises to who will vote you into office. Guess which side of contemporary American politics does this the most…


“The fact is that gay people have been descriminated against all through history is because the male-created system marginalizes that which it doesn't understand.”
-Rob Stone

Yet another claim with no facts. I’ll be waiting for you to produce those…
The fact really is that gay people have been discriminated against through history because for large periods of time things weren’t quite as cozy as they are now in our technologically advanced world and the desire to sexually reproduce and/or violently defend the social group were absolute necessities for adult people. A man’s value to the social group was his ability to f@ck and fight. Men who did not want to be with a woman and/or who were not aggressive when fighting other tribes or killing food in hunting parties served little to no use to the social group. A woman’s value was her attractiveness to a man and the ability to raise and feed offspring. Women could bear children either way, and were less easy to identify as other than heterosexual, but anyone who did not procreate or proved security was just consuming resources of someone who could be doing those things. As societies invented more technology someone’s worth began to be measured in expanding ways but the old instincts are still there, even now. In modern times, people understand it, but they understand it to be a relationship they either don’t agree with for religious reasons, or that regardless of religion they don’t see the same as a heterosexual relationship. This includes women Rob. There is also the fact that gay people want to claim rights that don’t exist (marriage) or that marriage as a privilege should be expanded to include them on the bases of equality but do absolutely no work to expand it for other excluded demographics destroying any sincerity or moral high-ground for their cause based on equality. This has nothing to do with some “male-created system.”

“You don't seem to understand much about history and you clearly do not understand perspectives of reality that differ from yours. You are a racist because you ignore and excuse racism. You are a sexist because you ignore and excuse sexism.”
-Rob Stone

Wow, I’ll call you out on that little lie right now. I never once ignored and excused racism or sexism and I would love for you to post where I did!
I never claimed discrimination against women or people of color did not exist what I had to show you was the historical facts concerning the heterosexual, white, men, who have also been discriminated against by the powers that be, disproving your theory on “the system” discriminating only against the female sex and non-white race. Sex/gender and race have been YOUR claims from the beginning, claims you have failed to back up and now resort to lying about me being a “sexist” and “racist” in your failed sex/race baiting argument attempting to smear someone as a bigot who argues against your sex and race based political dogma. Only the cool-aid drinkers see me the way you do Rob. Anyone with a triple digit IQ and an independent thought process can see your rhetoric for what it is. Sorry but I judge people based upon merit, and blame those who are in charge, ALL regardless of their sex/gender, or their race. I don’t blame things on any particular sex/gender or race because I’m not sexist or racist. As stated several times now, this is the same reason feminism gets a bad name, you have just expanded their unjustifiable blame of men with race based arguments as well.

Rob Stone

"Not really Rob, especially when you have yet to show I’m racist or sexist."--David Jackson

Except for all those instances where I did JUST THAT.

You claim that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution did not do so from a straight, white male point of view even though they were all straight, white, males, some of whom owned slaves (racists), others who supported slavery (racists), and all who thought it was just fine to deny women the same rights free, white men enjoyed (sexists).

So to deny that the Constitution (before any amendments) was not sexist or racist is an example of willfully denying clear examples of bigotry.

"You claimed that “the system” was built around catering to “heterosexual, white, men” has been debunked by the fact ONLY those rich enough to own land were able to vote"--David Jackson

So how many women who owned land could vote? How many Africans who owned property could vote? Oh, never mind. They couldn't own land. Nothing racist or sexist there.

"I simply pointed out to you that white men had also been unable to legally hold office "--David Jackson

You ignored the fact that ONLY white men could vote. Women and people of color could not, regardless of what they might have owned. Bottom line: only white men could become eligible. That's sexist and racist.

"I continue to point out to you the wealthy and politically connected are the real culprits but you keep focusing on sex and race instead."--David Jackson

If that were the case then all women and all people of color would have been subjected to the same, equal conditions as white men. But not. White men were given the opportunity to qualify. The rest were not. Sexist and racist. The system was for the benefit of white men only.

"there was a time when white men couldn’t vote or hold office. That’s again the point! "--David Jackson

No, the point is that only white men could be eligible. That's sexist and racist. To deny that only white men were eligible or could become eligible is sexist and racist.

"If you don’t want to back up your hypothetical argument"--David Jackson

I don't make hypothetical arguments. Sometimes hypotheticals can be used to support an argument, but I will make my own arguments for myself. I am not going to let you force me to make a faulty argument.

"Do you understand what a generalization is?"--David Jackson

Yes. Do you understand what a straw man is?

"You claimed that war is men’s fault was a “fact” at 10:30am on May 23rd, and “the people who start the wars are men” at 2:15pm June 3rd. Pretty clear who is being dishonest here Rob. "--David Jackson

Where did I say ALL MEN are responsible for the realities of war? Pretty clear that you are being dishonest here.

I am not going to bother with your sexist, racist, homophobic rants against non-white men. I've already made my points as clearly as I can.

"I never once ignored and excused racism or sexism and I would love for you to post where I did!"--David Jackson

That's pretty much all I've done in this thread and I'm not going to do it again. You can pretend that I haven't, but we both know better.

David Jackson

“Except for all those instances where I did JUST THAT.”
-Rob Stone

No, as a matter of fact, you didn’t. You LIED and said I stated things I did not. If you want to continue with your lie, go ahead and attempt to support it with my quotes along with dates and times supporting your claim. Do so now please.


“You claim that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution did not do so from a straight, white male point of view even though they were all straight, white, males, some of whom owned slaves (racists), others who supported slavery (racists), and all who thought it was just fine to deny women the same rights free, white men enjoyed (sexists).So to deny that the Constitution (before any amendments) was not sexist or racist is an example of willfully denying clear examples of bigotry.”
-Rob Stone

I never denied any of those things, what I have had to enlighten you on, several times now in fact, is that the same constitution at the same point in time did nothing to protect several of the same rights of straight, white, men who didn’t own any land. You still ignore this, in order to focus on sexist and racist discrimination ONLY, for the deceitful purpose of propping up your sex and race based social theories in support of your politics. The truth is, heterosexual white men were ALSO discriminated against by the same people who wrote the constitution, showing that the prospective of those in power has more to do with being in power than being a particular race or gender. Your philosophy that race and gender bear responsibility is ignorant of psychology and bigoted for political purposes.


“So how many women who owned land could vote? How many Africans who owned property could vote? Oh, never mind. They couldn't own land. Nothing racist or sexist there. Bottom line: only white men could become eligible. That's sexist and racist.”
-Rob Stone

Again, never claimed there was no sexism or racism. I showed you that discrimination by the powers that be goes beyond sexism and racism. There were white men also discriminated against. Can you address that at all or is this pitiful display of disingenuous name calling all you can respond with?


“The system was for the benefit of white men only.”
-Rob Stone

Except the majority that didn’t own land….hmm about that huh Rob. Even if they “could” theoretically own land, theoretical situations do not define rights or dispel discrimination. If they suddenly got enough money, what if nobody was selling? Point being, white, heterosexual, men were discriminated against too, thus proving discrimination by those in power is not limited to race or sex.


“I don't make hypothetical arguments. Sometimes hypotheticals can be used to support an argument, but I will make my own arguments for myself. I am not going to let you force me to make a faulty argument.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, first you already have made a faulty argument. Second, you made the hypothetical argument to being with when you claimed that if women were in charge of “the realities of war” as you originally put it, there would be “equal opportunities for all” in the military. So what gives women this greater capacity for institutional equality of opportunity? Or are you now running from your own hypothetical argument?


"Do you understand what a generalization is?"--David Jackson
“Yes. Do you understand what a straw man is?”
-Rob Stone

Lol, yeah, do you? Because guess what, it’s not just a claim you can through out here every time you get proved wrong and no longer want to answer.


Where did I say ALL MEN are responsible for the realities of war? Pretty clear that you are being dishonest here.
-Rob Stone

When you said “men” are responsible for war and it’s realities, you made a false generalization about ALL men. If you wanted to argue that only some men responsible for the realities of war, you should have written exactly that. Again, here is the definition of a generalization in the English language: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/generalization
Hope this helps!


“I am not going to bother with your sexist, racist, homophobic rants against non-white men. I've already made my points as clearly as I can.”
-Rob Stone

Aww, what’s the matter you don’t have any logic to counter my points so now you’re just gonna call me names and run? How mature and educated of you.
You have made claims with NO facts to back them up, outright lies concerning my stance on discrimination and bigotry, and continue to do so. I didn’t expect much else from you in the long run, the standard “progressive” philosophy on bigotry, racism, and sexism, falls apart when put up against the facts of reality and you either have to face this or label your opponent a “racist” or a “sexist” or a “homophobe” or some other form of “bigot” in an attempt to shame them out of the public discourse. Unfortunately for you I will require you to do more than shout lies and actually show how I’m sexist, racist, or any form of bigot and you have STILL failed to even try. What’s the matter Rob? Looking back through my posts now, you realize you got all hot and bothered about what I said, but reading them again they make too much sense without any bigotry in them?


“That's pretty much all I've done in this thread and I'm not going to do it again. You can pretend that I haven't, but we both know better.”
-Rob Stone

Wow dude, just wow. STILL waiting for you to re-post what I said with a date and time of my quote showing where I “ignored and excused” racism or sexism. You can go ahead and post that right at the same time where you show I was myself racist and sexist. I’m waiting big guy…

Oh and before I forget, you have still failed to back up the following claims with facts or logic to support your statements:

“The fact is that gay people have been descriminated against all through history is because the male-created system marginalizes that which it doesn't understand.”
-Rob Stone
“The fact is that people of color have a more difficult time, on average, because the white, male-created system values white over color.”
-Rob Stone
“The fact is that women earn less than men, on average, because the male-created system values men more than women.”
-Rob Stone

You can post your facts and/or logic supporting these claims along with whatever proof you have for me being sexist or racist. Because making false claims and lies about what I said doesn’t count.

Sorry Rob but the fact is the powers that be discriminate against anyone and everyone who isn’t part of the powers that be or “the elite” of society if you will. It may happen in varying degrees and/or points in time but it’s universal throughout history, and is NOT bound by factors like race or sex or sexual preference. Such factors may be a part of it, but they are not, nor have they ever been, the sum total. Judging political leaders and “the system” or the common citizen; by the color of their skin, their sex or gender, or who they have sex with, is just as sexist and racist as any institutionalized sexism or racism perceived by "the system."

Rob Stone

"I never denied any of those things"--David Jackson

Yes, you did. You claimed that the framers of the Constitution were not coming from a white or a male point of view, but of a rich, elitist point of view since only land-owning white men could vote and hold office. All you did was include "elitist" to the sexist, racist points of view that they held. (To be fair, some were opposed to slavery but the constitution upheld slavery and never mentioned owning land).

"You still ignore this, in order to focus on sexist and racist discrimination ONLY"--David Jackson

By ignorning it you really mean that I've addressed it several times. What a dishonest person you are. Do you know what "ignoring" means? Since I've addressed the LAND OWNING argument several times I am, in fact, directing addressing it (which is the opposite of ignorning).

"The truth is, heterosexual white men were ALSO discriminated against by the same people who wrote the constitution"--David Jackson

A point I have never denied. But just because SOME heterosexual white men had to qualify to vote doesn't mean that the people who wrote the Constitution didn't do so from a straight, white, male point of view. It was written from an elitist, straight, white, male point of view! There, happy?

In any event, neither women nor people of color could vote whether they owned land or not.

"I showed you that discrimination by the powers that be goes beyond sexism and racism."--David Jackson

You have failed to disprove my original point: the Constitution was written from a straight, white, male perspective. All you've done is force the inclusion of elitist. Fine. You cannot deny that the Constitution was written from an elitist, straight, white, male perspective (all the guys who wrote and ratified it were elitist, straight (at least officially), white, and male). The system has always benefited elitist, straight, white, males.

At least all white men could buy land (or inherit) it and qualify to vote and hold office. No women could. No Africans could.

"When you said “men” are responsible for war and it’s realities, you made a false generalization about ALL men."--David Jackson

No. You obviously don't understand English. If I say "men have been president of the United States since its inception," clearly I'm not saying that ALL men have been president. If I say "men are responsible for war and its realities," I'm clearly meaning that pretty much ONLY men are responsible for war and its realities.

Duh.

"Aww, what’s the matter you don’t have any logic to counter my points "--David Jackson

No, I don't have the patience to repeat myself any longer.

And, until you come up with something new, I'm not going to. Your petty insults and lies aren't as much bait as you think.

"You have made claims with NO facts to back them up"--David Jackson

See what I mean? Flat-out lie. Why should I continue to debate with someone who blatantly lies?

David Jackson

“All you did was include "elitist" to the sexist, racist points of view that they held. (To be fair, some were opposed to slavery but the constitution upheld slavery and never mentioned owning land).”
-Rob Stone

Bingo! We have a winner! If sexist, and racist, discrimination were not the only forms of discrimination being enforced, and there were forms of discrimination also against members of the same race and sex as those in power, than it’s NOT race and sex/gender based discrimination now is it! If it were a white male point of view all white men would have been treated the same. Denying the FACT “the system” was not written from only some “white male” point of view does not equate to denying or being ignorant of the existence of sexism or racism. Sorry Rob, if this is contrary to what the sex and race baiters taught you in your feminist theory classes, but discrimination goes beyond race and sex.


“By ignorning it you really mean that I've addressed it several times. What a dishonest person you are. Do you know what "ignoring" means? Since I've addressed the LAND OWNING argument several times I am, in fact, directing addressing it (which is the opposite of ignorning).”
-Rob Stone


You acknowledged it existed, because it did, then go onto ignore it by continuing to claim that discrimination in this country is based upon some “white male” perspective regardless of the fact white men were also being discriminated against. THAT’S IGNORING Rob.


"The truth is, heterosexual white men were ALSO discriminated against by the same people who wrote the constitution"--David Jackson
“A point I have never denied. But just because SOME heterosexual white men had to qualify to vote doesn't mean that the people who wrote the Constitution didn't do so from a straight, white, male point of view. It was written from an elitist, straight, white, male point of view! There, happy?”
-Rob Stone

I’ll be happy when what you just admitted actually sinks into your brain. The "elitist" part seems to have played a bigger role since they discriminated against people of the same sex and race huh?


“In any event, neither women nor people of color could vote whether they owned land or not.”
-Rob Stone

A fact that does not make them any different than the majority of the white male population. Wow, it’s almost like the powers that be acted from the perspective of those in power and not just from their race and sex. Weird. (pssst that was sarcasm)


"I showed you that discrimination by the powers that be goes beyond sexism and racism."--David Jackson
“You have failed to disprove my original point: the Constitution was written from a straight, white, male perspective.”
-Rob Stone

Really? Showing that there were white men also discriminated against doesn’t disprove your racist and sexist accretion about the Constitution and “the system”? What would Rob? Or is it that you will simply deny anything you don’t agree with on an internet forum whether you have been proven wrong or not?


“All you've done is force the inclusion of elitist. Fine. You cannot deny that the Constitution was written from an elitist, straight, white, male perspective (all the guys who wrote and ratified it were elitist, straight (at least officially), white, and male). The system has always benefited elitist, straight, white, males.”
-Rob Stone

Lol. And “elitist, straight, white males” discriminated against “regular, straight, white, males” now didn’t they. Huh. It’s almost like the powers that be discriminate based on criteria other than sex and race alone and thus discrimination knows no sexual or racial bounds. Weird.


“At least all white men could buy land (or inherit) it and qualify to vote and hold office. No women could. No Africans could.”
-Rob Stone

Theoretically…always the best definition of equal rights, theoretical possibilities! (again sarcasm) Eventually they could Rob, just like eventually white men who didn’t own land could vote. You STILL haven’t proven “the system’s” discrimination is racially or sexually based, which is what you need to do to justify feminism and other race/sex based theories concept of equality, social justice, and race/sex privilege and guilt. You see discrimination has historically crossed racial and sexual lines.


“No. You obviously don't understand English. If I say "men have been president of the United States since its inception," clearly I'm not saying that ALL men have been president. If I say "men are responsible for war and its realities," I'm clearly meaning that pretty much ONLY men are responsible for war and its realities. Duh.”
-Rob Stone

Sorry, but this is now just plain infantile. You see in the English language a generalization means taking one or a few facts and/or examples and then making a broader, more universal statement, based on said facts or examples. Furthermore, when my argument was that military and political LEADERS are responsible for the “realities of war”, even with the majority of said leaders being men (which I previously acknowledged), when in the position of leadership, women create the same “realities” (which I proved with historical examples), my point about it being the fault of those in the position and NOT about their sex or gender stands. Duh! I hope this has finally sunk in, as your oversimplified generalizations have been skirting the point for too long now.


“No, I don't have the patience to repeat myself any longer.”
-Rob Stone

You made claims, with no supporting evidence or even just sound logic. You don’t even have to repeat yourself all you have to do is scroll down then copy and paste. you can even make fun of me for missing it the first time if you want to. Until you do however, you’re running away from the argument.


“And, until you come up with something new, I'm not going to. Your petty insults and lies aren't as much bait as you think.”
-Rob Stone

And just as I predicted I countered your points with sound logic, you then responded with claims you could not support and called me sexist and racist in an attempt to shame me from the argument, but that didn’t work because this is one and one and you’re not standing in a crowd of like-minded political zombies to mindlessly shout in your support, so now you will claim victory even with no substance to your claims, and exist the argument. Take note: this is what sex and race baiting arguments look like when they fail.


“See what I mean? Flat-out lie. Why should I continue to debate with someone who blatantly lies?”
-Rob Stone

I do it. My strategy is to just keep posting the facts and logic that you refuse to directly discuss even when you do acknowledge them, and then call you out on it. So far all I’ve gotten back is being called a few names.
And it’s no lie Rob, scroll back down to your own work and see for yourself.

Rob Stone

"If sexist, and racist, discrimination were not the only forms of discrimination being enforced"--David Jackson

So you admit that the Constitution was written from a rich, white, male perspective! Before you denied it was written from a white, male perspective . . . so as long as we add "rich" to it then we agree.

Why didn't you just agree at the beginning and say, "we should also include rich"? Then we could have avoided wasting so much time!

"If it were a white male point of view all white men would have been treated the same."--David Jackson

No. The mere fact that ALL WHITE MALES could vote and hold office if they owned land makes it sexist and racist (from a white male point of view). In other words, no woman or person of color could vote, much less own land. So in that sense, all white males were treated equally.

If only white males could qualify by owning land then only white males benefit and could benefit.

How many ways can I write it before you see that only white males could vote or have the opportunity to vote?

"You acknowledged it existed, because it did, then go onto ignore it by continuing to claim that discrimination in this country is based upon some “white male” perspective regardless of the fact white men were also being discriminated against. THAT’S IGNORING Rob."--David Jackson

No, it isn't. I disagree with you. You seem to think that everyone who disagrees with you is ignornig you. That's not the way it works. I addressed your point and disagreed with it. That isn't ignoring it.

"You STILL haven’t proven “the system’s” discrimination is racially or sexually based"--David Jackson

Yes I have. I will again: only white men could qualify (by owning land) to vote and to hold office.

No persons of color and no women's voting rights were guaranteed. That's racially and sexually based discrimination.

And I know English and how generalizations work. I also know how you twist phrases to pretend that I've implied something that we both know I did not.

"You made claims, with no supporting evidence or even just sound logic."--David Jackson

Another lie.

"And just as I predicted I countered your points with sound logic"--David Jackson

And just as I predicted, you pretend that you use sound logic but you don't.

I've already successfully got you to admit that the people responsible for the Constitution were sexist and racist, even if they were also classicists (although the land owning thing had more to do with being a responsible citizen with tangible interests in social policy).

Now I just need to figure a way to get you to understand that white males work from a white male point of view. That might take some doing since it's so clearly obvious.

David Jackson

"If sexist, and racist, discrimination were not the only forms of discrimination being enforced"--David Jackson
“So you admit that the Constitution was written from a rich, white, male perspective! Before you denied it was written from a white, male perspective . . . so as long as we add "rich" to it then we agree.”
-Rob Stone

No Rob, as a matter of fact I don’t. Grasping at straws now? If their perspective was racially or sexually based, it would have stopped there. But it didn’t. Sorry, facts are a motherf*er aren’t they.


“No. The mere fact that ALL WHITE MALES could vote and hold office if they owned land makes it sexist and racist (from a white male point of view). In other words, no woman or person of color could vote, much less own land. So in that sense, all white males were treated equally.”
-Rob Stone

Theoretical possibilities do not define rights or equality. We have been over this several times now.


“How many ways can I write it before you see that only white males could vote or have the opportunity to vote?”
-Rob Stone

Considering that white males who didn’t own land were also discriminated against, you could probably re-word it infinitely. You would still be trying to categorize discrimination that crossed racial and gender lines as being based on sex and raced only, to further your sex and race baiting political philosophy.


“No, it isn't. I disagree with you. You seem to think that everyone who disagrees with you is ignornig you. That's not the way it works. I addressed your point and disagreed with it. That isn't ignoring it.”
-Rob Stone

You didn’t respond to it. You said that it existed then went right back to the point you were trying to make without ever explaining why discrimination against white males doesn’t count. Your separately written comments about how a white man could “potentially” vote or hold office if he obtained land doesn’t cut it. Theoretical possibilities don’t define equality.


“Yes I have. I will again: only white men could qualify (by owning land) to vote and to hold office.”
-Rob Stone

Which white men? The lucky ones? The wealthy ones? Is this how we define equality now, well some could do it, maybe, so obviously your entire sex and gender is treated equally to those who were given the vote. Unbelievable. You’re reaching now man.


“No persons of color and no women's voting rights were guaranteed. That's racially and sexually based discrimination.”
-Rob Stone

And again, for the umpteenth time, it was not the ONLY discrimination being waged against the people as a whole. Thus racial and sexual are not the only perspectives the discrimination was coming from, thus the discrimination was a product of those in power being in power, NOT their sex and or gender. You want to pick and choose discrimination because they alone are in line with your politics. Reality however, shows us that political leaders discriminate against everyone but their own. Specific experiences may vary, but in the end it is us and them. NOT Black America, White America, Gay America, Male America, Female America, etc.


"You made claims, with no supporting evidence or even just sound logic."--David Jackson
“Another lie.”
-Rob Stone

No, it isn’t. You posted the following claims on the 24th of June. Still waiting on any support for these claims…

“The fact is that people of color have a more difficult time, on average, because the white, male-created system values white over color.”
-Rob Stone
“The fact is that gay people have been descriminated against all through history is because the male-created system marginalizes that which it doesn't understand.”
-Rob Stone
“The fact is that women earn less than men, on average, because the male-created system values men more than women.”
-Rob Stone


How does the “white male created system” (LOL) value men more than women, marginalize gays, give people of color a more difficult time? Wait don’t tell me, you will dismiss this question, say you already answered, than project me as a liar when I say you didn’t answer and you call me a liar for it, right?

“And just as I predicted, you pretend that you use sound logic but you don't.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, than why have you failed to point out how what I argued was wrong, and instead just called me sexist and racist???


“I've already successfully got you to admit that the people responsible for the Constitution were sexist and racist, even if they were also classicists (although the land owning thing had more to do with being a responsible citizen with tangible interests in social policy).”
-Rob Stone

Wow dude. If their discrimination was not limited to only sexist and racist acts, than their discrimination was not based upon their sex and gender. It doesn’t matter if you can categorize different policies as being against this group or that group, their discrimination encompassed many groups and thus was based upon something more. You can keep repeating yourself over and over again with your over-simplified race and sex based BS but that doesn’t make you right. Fact of the matter is discrimination in this country (and every other in history) has more to do with the “rulers” being rulers than their skin color or genitals. I know you can’t get uneducated, inexperienced, kids brainwashed into voting for the politicians who pander to the ever growing population who looks to everyone but themselves to explain their life if you don’t rally support based upon personal issues. But too bad, it’s still not true, and just race and gender based propaganda meant to divide American society into separate groups of squabbling demographics too busy fighting amongst each other to keep an eye on the a$$holes in charge. Unfortunately you either ignorantly support this, or maybe you aren’t so ignorant and maliciously support it?


“Now I just need to figure a way to get you to understand that white males work from a white male point of view. That might take some doing since it's so clearly obvious.”
-Rob Stone

Clearly obvious to the cool-aid drinking, gender and race baiting, academics and politicians who pick and choose their evidence to fit their predetermined conclusions. And painfully evident to anyone with any real-world experience, and the capacity for independent thought, to be nothing more than a political ploy. Find a way to reverse the memory of worldly experience I have ever had since high school, every history book I have ever read, or brainwash me to think of everyone in terms of their race and gender first and an American second. Unless you can do that you have a lot of fact posting to do in order to convince me.

Rob Stone

"Theoretical possibilities do not define rights or equality."--David Jackson

That is a red herring. The fact is that ONLY white men could vote, hold office, qualify to vote, qualify to hold office.

Women and people of color could not vote or qualify to vote.

So the system was established by white men for the benefit of white men. This is what we've been over time and time again and this is my last word on it.

"Considering that white males who didn’t own land were also discriminated against"--David Jackson

They were not discriminated against. Any and all white men COULD OWN LAND and then vote. No women or people of color could vote, could own land.

You continue to ignore the fact that ONLY WHITE MEN could vote if they owned land. You are ignoring the racism and sexism that existed. We've been over it time and time again and this is my last word on it.

"You didn’t respond to it. You said that it existed then went right back to the point you were trying to make without ever explaining why discrimination against white males doesn’t count."--David Jackson

You fail at reading comprehension. It isn't discrimination against white men if only white men can own land and then vote. It is discrimination against women and people of color no matter what.

I've addressed it many times. Stop whining that I'm ignoring you. In fact, I'm giving you way too much attention.

"Which white men?"--David Jackson

Any and all who owned land. Which women and people of color could vote?

"How does the “white male created system” (LOL) value men more than women, marginalize gays, give people of color a more difficult time?"--David Jackson

I have answered these questions several times. Here are just a couple of examples:
How many states ban same-sex marriage? How many states have laws that do not recognize legal same-sex marriages? How many states are currently working to limit women's reproductive rights (e.g., Texas, Ohio)? How many states are working to make it harder for minorities to vote (e.g., Mississippi)? It would seem that if you are a straight, white, man then these assaults on liberty are not aimed at you.
Here's a picture of white men in Ohio assaulting women's reproductive rights: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ohio-governor-flanked-men-signs-stringent-abortion-restrictions-law-article-1.1387193

"If their discrimination was not limited to only sexist and racist acts, than their discrimination was not based upon their sex and gender."--David Jackson

Horrible logic. You like to crow about your superior intellect and use of reasoning but this fails the laugh test. Discrimination can be based on more than one thing. That doesn't mitigate the discrimination. They discriminated against Africans. They discriminated against women. Those are two facts that cannot be denied unless you are a complete denier of history. Just because they required white men to qualify doesn't mean that they weren't prejudiced against Africans and women. I am not going to argue any longer with this kind of puerile thinking.

"Clearly obvious to the cool-aid drinking, gender and race baiting, academics and politicians who pick and choose their evidence to fit their predetermined conclusions."--David Jackson

It is you who deny any evidence that doesn't fit your predetermined conclusions. And rather than debate the issues honestly, you simply level hypocritical and generalized insults at groups of people you have decided to villify.

"Unless you can do that you have a lot of fact posting to do in order to convince me."--David Jackson

There is nothing I could do to convince you. You have already made up your mind that you will defend any charge of racism or sexism or homophobia leveled at the straight, white, male point of view. To the point that you deny that there is even such a thing as a straight, white, male point of view. It's like trying to convince someone who doesn't believe in climate change that the climate is changing. It's like trying to convince someone who believes that the Earth is flat that the Earth is a sphere. It is impossible because you are so entrenched in your political ideology that you cannot accept any form of evidence that doesn't conform to your preferred view of fictionalized reality.

If you don't recognize and speak out against racism, sexism, and homophobia then you are supporting them. You have been supporting racism, sexism, and homophobia. Some day I hope you see your errors. It won't be because of me or anyone else, it can only come about from self-realization. Good luck.

David Jackson

"Theoretical possibilities do not define rights or equality."--David Jackson
“That is a red herring. The fact is that ONLY white men could vote, hold office, qualify to vote, qualify to hold office.Women and people of color could not vote or qualify to vote.”
-Rob Stone

No Rob, that is not fact. The fact is, ONLY landowning white males could vote or hold office. Therefore there was discrimination against white men as well. Because they could theoretically own land one day, maybe, doesn’t make them any different from the women and people of color. White men were by law, discriminated against. leaving them out of the sentence isn't proof of anything. Sorry, but historical facts prove the powers that be do not operate from ONLY a race and gender viewpoint.


“They were not discriminated against. Any and all white men COULD OWN LAND and then vote. No women or people of color could vote, could own land.”
-Rob Stone

Lie, they were in fact barred from voting or holding office unless they owned land. All white men could own land? Really? There was enough land for EVERY white male in colonial America and the later States? There was enough personal wealth for EVERY white male to buy land? Enough landowners that EVERY white male could inherit land? This is exactly why it is fact you are clinging to your political dogma and are devoid of logic. It is in fact NOT possible for every white male to gain the criteria to vote or hold office. Race and sex are not the only or definitive measure of discrimination. Deny it all you want, you’re absolutely in opposition to the facts.


“ continue to ignore the fact that ONLY WHITE MEN could vote if they owned land. You are ignoring the racism and sexism that existed. We've been over it time and time again and this is my last word on it.”
-Rob Stone

“Could” is not true, as “if” means it’s only a possibility and land is not something all can get. Also, it is a lie to claim I’m ignoring the racism and sexism that existed as I acknowledged it existed, I simply point out to you it does not encompass all, and thus does not define, the discrimination in question. Last word? Good, it’s about time you gave up on your deceitful and bias supported assertions.


“You fail at reading comprehension. It isn't discrimination against white men if only white men can own land and then vote. It is discrimination against women and people of color no matter what.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, I don’t fail at reading comprehension it’s just that I post ALL of the facts when discussing history, and don’t pick and choose only those that support my position like you. Again Rob, white men could not vote, only land owning white men. Go ahead and attempt to argue that they ALL could do that? Oh wait, you decided to “give your last word” before you ever backed up all white men owning land. Hmmm. Almost like you know there would always have been white men being discriminated against under that system and your assertion that the discrimination is defined by sex and race would crumble. Go ahead and run away from the argument now.


“Any and all who owned land. Which women and people of color could vote?”
-Rob Stone

“Who owned land” being the operative phrase. Which means there were white men right there in the same boat with all the women and people of color. Look at that, discrimination that goes beyond race and sex!


“I have answered these questions several times. Here are just a couple of examples:”
-Rob Stone

Funny you failed to type when you posted them before than huh? Almost like your claim I was a liar was in fact a LIE. In any case I will now dismantle your hopelessly politically biased examples.

“How many states ban same-sex marriage?..have laws that do not recognize legal same-sex marriages?”
–Rob Stone

None, most states still define it as a legal union between one unrelated man and one unrelated woman. (they “ban” nothing) This definition of the legal privilege of marriage also excludes desired unions of homosexuals, polygamists, relatives, and bisexuals. If it were a “civil right” you would not need a license from the State to get one and ALL legal adults would be able to get one at their own choosing. How many State’s marriage laws include relatives, and plural marriages? Oh that’s right NONE! Hmm imagine that, discrimination that goes beyond sex and race and thus also the sex and race baiting politics of the contemporary “progressive” political philosophy! Lol, let me guess, those other individual Americans who still can’t marry who they love don’t really need rights and don’t qualify as being discriminated against because discrimination is only from white males against people of color, women, and homosexuals right Rob? This is actually the perfect example of your close minded political dogma clouding your intellect. You’re arguments are a sick joke.


“How many states are currently working to limit women's reproductive rights (e.g., Texas, Ohio)?”
-Rob Stone

None. I couldn’t find a single State that was moving legislation to outlaw contraception or to ban abortion when the mother would die if the pregnancy was taken to term. Texas and Ohio are currently trying to ban legal murder in the form of abortions taking place so far into pregnancy a heartbeat other than the mother’s can be detected (just in case you don’t follow, that’s someone else’s heart as humans only have one big guy) and thus killing baby and not simply removing a wad of dividing cells that are made of only the woman’s body. Again, your arguments are a sick joke.


“How many states are working to make it harder for minorities to vote (e.g., Mississippi)?”
-Rob Stone

None. Could not find a single State that is purposely trying to keep minorities from voting. Several States, including Mississippi, are looking to require someone have a form of State or Federal issued ID proving they were who they say they are, just like you have to do for other rights, to avoid voter fraud. Even though you claim such fraud doesn’t exist, again the facts prove you wrong. Still a sick joke.
http://www.truethevote.org/news/how-widespread-is-voter-fraud-2012-facts-figures
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX6E2Ucv7S8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaUsT9MLMlA


“It would seem that if you are a straight, white, man then these assaults on liberty are not aimed at you.”
-Rob Stone

And the sick joke’s punch line! Regardless of what it “seems” like to you and other gender and race baiters, the facts are discrimination exists against EVERYONE in one form or another, and your examples of current “discrimination” are absurd. Many people other than gays do not have the legal privilege to marry (including some straight white men btw), nobody is trying to take away a woman’s right to her body they are trying to stop the scientifically proven infanticide as the no man OR woman has the right to kill another human being (including little baby girls) unless in self defense, and nobody has the right to commit voter fraud, not even straight white men!


“They discriminated against Africans. They discriminated against women. Those are two facts that cannot be denied unless you are a complete denier of history. Just because they required white men to qualify doesn't mean that they weren't prejudiced against Africans and women. I am not going to argue any longer with this kind of puerile thinking.”
-Rob Stone

Wow, lol, discrimination can be based on more than one thing, that doesn't mitigate the discrimination, but if the discrimination also applied to some white men that doesn’t count because it was only some of them? LOL, tell that to them Einstein! Then come back and explain to me how they weren’t just as discriminated against! Talk about horrible logic. People of color, women, and, oh gosh, much of the white male population, were ALL discriminated against. You cannot claim such discrimination is based upon a racial or gender prospective if portions of their race and gender were included. Unless your idea of reasoning excludes anything you would rather not remember because it doesn’t prop up your chosen views.


“It is you who deny any evidence that doesn't fit your predetermined conclusions. And rather than debate the issues honestly, you simply level hypocritical and generalized insults at groups of people you have decided to villify.”
-Rob Stone

Absolute hypocrisy. What evidence am I denying? I acknowledge all the discrimination that existed including sex and race based. Unlike you however, I don’t choose to define discrimination as being based on only parts of the whole.


“It's like trying to convince someone who believes that the Earth is flat that the Earth is a sphere. It is impossible because you are so entrenched in your political ideology that you cannot accept any form of evidence that doesn't conform to your preferred view of fictionalized reality.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, projecting doesn’t make you right Rob. Neither does adhering to group-think originated, factually unsupported, philosophies.


“If you don't recognize and speak out against racism, sexism, and homophobia then you are supporting them.”
-Rob Stone

And if you don’t recognize and speak out against other forms of discrimination like classism, elitism, and political discrimination, or decide they aren’t as important as your sex and race based discrimination, you are just as guilty of supporting them. We have EQUAL rights as Americans, NOT special rights as (insert race, gender, orientation here)-Americans. You want to claim a “white male” perspective exists when millions of white males have been discriminated against by the powers that be. That means you don't recognize and speak out against that discrimination. By your own standard that means you support it. Look, you just proved yourself you are a racist and sexist!


“You have been supporting racism, sexism, and homophobia.”
-Rob Stone

Same old same old. Losing the argument? Cry BIGOT and exit the discussion! Back to the intellectually lacking tried and true huh Rob. Considering you are the one out of the two of us who supports dividing Americans into hyphenated groups defined by their race, gender, and sexual orientation, I’d say it is you who have a lot to learn about racism, sexism, homophobia, and discrimination as a whole. However considering your absolute adherence to dogmatic politics, I have absolutely no hope for you. You have a good day.

Rob Stone

"“How many states ban same-sex marriage?..have laws that do not recognize legal same-sex marriages?”
–Rob Stone

"None, most states still define it as a legal union between one unrelated man and one unrelated woman."--David Jackson

You are wrong again. There are states that explicitly ban same-sex marriages. Georgia and Alabama, for example.
Alabama: "No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex"
Georgia: "(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage."

Any state that limits marriage to one man and one woman bans anything else by definition. There are 29 total, I believe.

Furthermore, you avoided answering how many states have laws that do not recognize legal same-sex marriages. There are 21, I believe.

"None. I couldn’t find a single State that was moving legislation to outlaw contraception or to ban abortion when the mother would die if the pregnancy was taken to term."--David Jackson

Not the question you were asked. If you can't answer it, don't weasel out by changing the subject to a straw man.

"None. Could not find a single State that is purposely trying to keep minorities from voting."--David Jackson

Then you didn't look hard enough.

"We have EQUAL rights as Americans, NOT special rights as (insert race, gender, orientation here)-Americans."--David Jackson

BINGO. Yet for some reason you think allowing women the vote is a special right? Allowing people of color to vote is a special right? Allowing same-sex couples the right to marry is a special right?

Yes, classicism and elitism and political discrimination must be addressed and people shouldn't be victim to those issues. But don't pretend that a rich, white, male point of view isn't a white male point of view.

David Jackson

Whoa , whoa, whoa. Rob Stone!? Replying to a post with facts!? Saying I’m wrong and actually posting some supporting evidence!? Holy Sh*t! This has got to be some sort of record, it’s been at least 3 months since facts had anything to do with your accretions.

I was wrong. Admittedly I did not search for every State for their marriage law. You found 2 out of 50 that actually ban it, I’ll give you some credit and assume you are correct, and only go onto ask you if those States allow relatives or multiple partners to marry there as well? Do they Rob?


“Any state that limits marriage to one man and one woman bans anything else by definition. There are 29 total, I believe.”
-Rob Stone

That’s a matter of opinion beside the point but whatever. In that case they also ban relatives or multiple partners to marry, so again what’s your point? There is “legal marriage discrimination” going on against more than just gays isn’t there Rob.


“Furthermore, you avoided answering how many states have laws that do not recognize legal same-sex marriages. There are 21, I believe.”
-Rob Stone

Furthermore, you again either ignore or miss the point, that there is not a single State with marriage laws that does not discriminate against legal age consenting adults, including straight white men. This even includes those States that now allow for gay marriage. Again, discrimination that goes beyond sex and race and thus also the sex and race baiting politics of the contemporary “progressive” political philosophy. Yet you want to focus only on one group.


"None. I couldn’t find a single State that was moving legislation to outlaw contraception or to ban abortion when the mother would die if the pregnancy was taken to term."--David Jackson
“Not the question you were asked. If you can't answer it, don't weasel out by changing the subject to a straw man.”
-Rob Stone

Really Rob, what was I asked then? Because “reproductive rights” do not include killing innocent people out of convenience. The line between one’s’ right to their own body is drawn when what they do affects another’s body. That person has a right to their own body too. Why is anything you don’t have a politically, pre-programmed, answer to a “straw man”? Talk about weaseling out. You want to claim there are States currently working to limit women's reproductive rights, state what they are doing and why how it limit’s rights. Or cant you?


"None. Could not find a single State that is purposely trying to keep minorities from voting."--David Jackson
“Then you didn't look hard enough.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, oh sure, which is why you failed to post what you say exists but I couldn’t find. Fact is there is NOT single State that is purposely trying to keep minorities from voting. You want to make the claim there is, the burden of proof is on you to show it.


“BINGO. Yet for some reason you think allowing women the vote is a special right? Allowing people of color to vote is a special right? Allowing same-sex couples the right to marry is a special right?”
-Rob Stone

Um no I don’t. Although marriage is still not a right, as all States still require a license for the practice. Trying to label me a bigot again because you can’t win with facts Rob? I never said that them getting to do those things was a "special" anything.


“But don't pretend that a rich, white, male point of view isn't a white male point of view.”
-Rob Stone

I don’t have to pretend, because it isn’t. If it were, white men wouldn’t be discriminated against by politicians, elitists, and the rich. Whatever role their race and gender plays in their decision making process it isn’t enough to prevent them from screwing over the regular white guy. Thus this “straight, white, male privilege” bullsh*t is just that, bullsh*t, and nothing more than a race and gender baiting political ploy.

Rob Stone

"I was wrong."--David Jackson

For once, I completely agree with you. Thank you for FINALLY admitting that you were wrong about something. Perhaps you should consider that some of your other unresearched blanket statements are also wrong.

"Yet you want to focus only on one group."--David Jackson

No, I don't. But you refuse to acknowledge clear racism and sexism. Just because there is racism and sexism doesn't meant there isn't other discrimination and bigotry. But the presence of other forms of bigotry doesn't preclude sexism and racism as you continue to maintain.

"The line between one’s’ right to their own body is drawn when what they do affects another’s body."--David Jackson

Straw man.

"That person has a right to their own body too."--David Jackson

I'm not getting into an abortion debate but I will say that a fetus is not a person. A woman is.

States that make voting more difficult for certain groups of people (i.e., poor, black, elderly, Democrats) are discriminating against those particular groups. Mississippi and other states are in the process of changing voting by requiring restrictions that make it more difficult for law-abiding people to vote (not the law-abiding middle-class, white people, especially Republicans).

"Although marriage is still not a right, as all States still require a license for the practice."--David Jackson

1. The use of a license doesn't indicate whether something is a right or not. Think for one minute about how many other "rights" can only be legally exercised with a license.
2. Marriage is a right. See "14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right"
http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

So a rich, white, male point of view is not a white male point of view. That is the kind of absuridy that makes reasonable discussion with you impossible. You are either being dishonest or you are incapable of using basic logic.

Furthermore, if you want to whine about me calling you names then do so directly instead of dragging my name into some other disucssion. Be a man.

David Jackson

“Perhaps you should consider that some of your other unresearched blanket statements are also wrong.”
-Rob Stone

I have, they’re not “un-researched”, and they’re not wrong, get over it.


“No, I don't. But you refuse to acknowledge clear racism and sexism. Just because there is racism and sexism doesn't meant there isn't other discrimination and bigotry. But the presence of other forms of bigotry doesn't preclude sexism and racism as you continue to maintain.”
-Rob Stone

I have never refused to acknowledge clear racism and sexism. You claim I have, yet cannot show where I have done this. In our exchange I have stated that there is some discrimination based upon race and sex but that most discrimination, if not all in modern America, goes beyond that as well. The presence of other forms of discrimination or bigotry means that the sum total cannot be explained or blamed on only partial factors. If a “white male perspective” is where bigotry and discrimination comes from, there would not be discrimination affecting white men as much as it does. I have stated this repeatedly now.


“Straw man.”
-Rob Stone

Ha! No Rob it isn’t, it’s called logic, you should try it sometime. You’d probably have to re-examine half your politics but I can tell you from experience the personal intellectual growth would be quite rewarding.


“I'm not getting into an abortion debate but I will say that a fetus is not a person. A woman is.”
-Rob Stone

You don’t want to get into another discussion where your feelings based politics will be proven wrong with verifiable facts? Lol say it isn’t so. If they have a detectable heartbeat (among other biological development factors) they are a person. You see objects or potential people are not so developed. Modern biology is not on your side.


“Mississippi and other states are in the process of changing voting by requiring restrictions that make it more difficult for law-abiding people to vote (not the law-abiding middle-class, white people, especially Republicans).”
-Rob Stone

Another claim with NO EVIDENCE. How about you describe what they are doing and make the case it is discriminatory. For the hundredth time repeating yourself over and over doesn’t make you right.


“1. The use of a license doesn't indicate whether something is a right or not. Think for one minute about how many other "rights" can only be legally exercised with a license.”
-Rob Stone

Only a one or two come to mind, they are not really rights in practice if you must get a license first, and for the ones I can think of, said laws should be stricken immediately for infringing on a right and I have worked to do so. What work have you done to do this with marriage?


“2. Marriage is a right. See "14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right" http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/”
-Rob Stone


Oh, really, than we should dismantle the entire licensing system in each State as Americans do not ask permission to exercise a right! How many letters and phone calls have you made to our elected officials to make this happen? If your answer is zero I can tell you have little to no respect for that right.


“So a rich, white, male point of view is not a white male point of view. That is the kind of absuridy that makes reasonable discussion with you impossible. You are either being dishonest or you are incapable of using basic logic.”
-Rob Stone

Neither, I’m just in a discussion with a guy who either refuses to actually think about what I’m writing or knows he is wrong and thinks if he repeats himself enough I’ll just give in.

The social status of wealth and power outweighs sex and gender, even in white men Rob. My supporting evidence is the laws that discriminate against straight, white, males, in our society. Where is your evidence supporting discrimination is either exclusively or primarily focused on women, gays, and people of color? Because I have refuted all the ones you have posted so far with points you have yet to counter with facts or logic disproving them.


“Furthermore, if you want to whine about me calling you names then do so directly instead of dragging my name into some other disucssion. Be a man.”
-Rob Stone

I am a man and I didn’t whine. I simply called you a disingenuous name caller, as I did earlier in this discussion, to others who have responded to you in the past in a discussion I knew you would read.

Rob Stone

David, you love to condemn me for not providing evidence and facts (although that condemnation is baseless), and yet you have no problem doing what you criticize me for doing.

What is the "verifiable fact" to back your statement: "If they have a detectable heartbeat (among other biological development factors) they are a person."? You made the claim--as though it were objective truth--but you provided nothing to support your opinion. NO EVIDENCE.

"Another claim with NO EVIDENCE. How about you describe what they are doing and make the case it is discriminatory.--David Jackson

You've already stated that they are not doing anything discriminatory but provided NO EVIDENCE. You wrote: "Fact is there is NOT single State that is purposely trying to keep minorities from voting." Prove that claim.

"Oh, really, than we should dismantle the entire licensing system in each State as Americans do not ask permission to exercise a right!"--David Jackson

You are avoiding the point. Marriage is a right. I made that claim and then backed it with EVIDENCE. You didn't like the EVIDENCE so you changed the point.

"The social status of wealth and power outweighs sex and gender, even in white men Rob. My supporting evidence is the laws that discriminate against straight, white, males, in our society."--David Jackson

1. You must prove social status, wealth, and power outweighs other factors with evidence that there are more cases where social status, wealth, and power are more important than other factors. You haven't done so.
2. It is kind of a moot point. I've never denied that people without power and wealth are discriminated against because they are without power and wealth.
3. Discrimination due to poverty and lack of power in no way precludes discrimination because of sex, gender, color, sexual orientation, etc.

You have yet to prove that straight white males are discriminated against BECAUSE they are straight white males.

"Where is your evidence supporting discrimination is either exclusively or primarily focused on women, gays, and people of color?"--David Jackson

Apart from understanding reality:
http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/sex-discrimination-and-sexual-harassment-0
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/index.cfm
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40934.pdf
http://www.cityvision.edu/wiki/sexism-and-gender-discrimination-statistics
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10887&page=R1

"Because I have refuted all the ones you have posted so far with points you have yet to counter with facts or logic disproving them."--David Jackson

BS. You can't refute statistics unless you prove the numbers are wrong.

David Jackson

“What is the "verifiable fact" to back your statement: "If they have a detectable heartbeat (among other biological development factors) they are a person."? You made the claim--as though it were objective truth--but you provided nothing to support your opinion. NO EVIDENCE.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, no evidence!? Who’s heart are they detecting Rob? It’s not the mother’s…it’s not the doctor’s…it’s not the PA’s…who else is in the room Rob? You would deny the sky is blue just to run your mouth you know that. You keep talking about reality but I’m not so sure you live in it.


"Another claim with NO EVIDENCE. How about you describe what they are doing and make the case it is discriminatory.--David Jackson
“You've already stated that they are not doing anything discriminatory but provided NO EVIDENCE. You wrote: "Fact is there is NOT single State that is purposely trying to keep minorities from voting." Prove that claim.”
-Rob Stone

Wow, you make the claim: “How many states are working to make it harder for minorities to vote (e.g., Mississippi)?-Rob Stone 1:07pm July 2nd” You provide NO link to ANY evidence of this, then when I call you out on it and add I couldn’t find any State working to make it harder for minorities to vote, and remind you that you have yet to provide any evidence of your claim, you actually try and put the burden of proof on me to prove there are no States doing it. You’re still a joke Rob. You know what there guy, here is my proof:
http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/State-and-Territories.shtml
From there you can get to each State’s webpage and then their legislative actions. Look threw there and you will not find laws aimed at making it harder for minorities to vote. If you have some other source (you know, actual evidence!) feel free to finally post that now. If not, guess what, you have made another claim that was a fabrication of the truth in another lame attempt to promote your political agenda. But it’s baseless as long as you don’t want to answer right?


“You are avoiding the point. Marriage is a right. I made that claim and then backed it with EVIDENCE. You didn't like the EVIDENCE so you changed the point.”
-Rob Stone

Lol, no Rob, that IS the point. If it’s a right, as you see fit to claim with evidence, people are wrongfully being forced to be licensed to exercise it, making it a defacto legal privilege. Still others, are denied it all together, and they aren’t even homosexuals! Gasp! So I’ll ask again; what have you done to remedy this? If your answer is nothing, you have no respect for this right and have no moral high ground to argue your point.


"The social status of wealth and power outweighs sex and gender, even in white men Rob. My supporting evidence is the laws that discriminate against straight, white, males, in our society."--David Jackson
“1. You must prove social status, wealth, and power outweighs other factors with evidence that there are more cases where social status, wealth, and power are more important than other factors. You haven't done so.”
-Rob Stone

Are you mentally challenged? The laws that discriminate against straight, white, males, in our society mean that discrimination goes beyond race, orientation, and gender. Did you decide they didn’t exist after I listed several of them to you weeks ago now? Everyone is discriminated against, one way or another, by those in power. Therefore, claiming discrimination is a product of race and gender is moot. Focusing on only some discrimination against some of the common people is divisive and leads to infighting amongst ALL the people who are all being discriminated against. This lack of unity is the reason for most of the race issues in the US today. But it does get race baiters voted for.

“2. It is kind of a moot point. I've never denied that people without power and wealth are discriminated against because they are without power and wealth.”
-Rob Stone

But you can’t let go of your race baiting political propaganda, thus you claim race and gender are the basis for discrimination, specifically straight, white, men, discriminating against everyone else. Even though they also discriminate against their own.

“3. Discrimination due to poverty and lack of power in no way precludes discrimination because of sex, gender, color, sexual orientation, etc.”
-Rob Stone

So what? When it includes discrimination against members of the same race and gender as those making the rules, focusing on the race, gender, and orientation of those doing the discrimination is both ignorant and divisive to those being discriminated against.


“You have yet to prove that straight white males are discriminated against BECAUSE they are straight white males.”
-Rob Stone

And that statement is why you are a sexist racist, or at the very least a sex and race baiter. If they are being discriminated against, by the same people that are discriminating against others, their gender and race DOESN’T MATTER and to focus on them is blatantly and willfully ignorant of the big picture. They most likely aren’t being discriminated against because they are straight white males Rob. They are being discriminated against because they are NOT part of the elite, the politically connected, the powers that be. You either are ignoring this entire point over and over again or refuse to acknowledge the flaws in your own preconceived notions.


"Where is your evidence supporting discrimination is either exclusively or primarily focused on women, gays, and people of color?"--David Jackson
“Apart from understanding reality:”
-Rob Stone

I guess in your reality all you have to do is post like minded websites containing statistics we have already discussed as evidence. Sorry Rob but in the real world, you know the one you don’t want to debate, evidence means proof!

http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/sex-discrimination-and-sexual-harassment-0
This website focuses ONLY on sex discrimination and harassment, how does it in ANY way prove there is no discrimination against straight, white, men? They don’t even address it.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/index.cfm
This website actually disproves your claim and supports mine! It contains evidence for discrimination against handicap people of every race, gender, and orientation, because they are disabled. Thanks for helping to prove my point that discrimination is not exclusively or primarily focused on women, gays, and people of color. Way to read your own source dude lol.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40934.pdf
This is a legal analysis of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which focuses on sexual orientation or sexual identity. It did not anywhere disprove discrimination against employees for reasons other than sexual orientation or sexual identity nor did its scope even try. Nice try, just keep throwing links up to look good Rob, someone will believe you someday.

http://www.cityvision.edu/wiki/sexism-and-gender-discrimination-statistics
The statistics on this website are not even close to as comprehensive as those we used earlier when arguing over pay disparity. This is a joke, not a very good one, but a joke none the less. The “gender pay gap” was disproved to you weeks ago.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10887&page=R1
That paper is concerning Measuring Racial Discrimination. Nothing more or less. What does it do to prove discrimination is either exclusively or primarily focused on women, gays, and people of color?


"Because I have refuted all the ones you have posted so far with points you have yet to counter with facts or logic disproving them."--David Jackson
"BS. You can't refute statistics unless you prove the numbers are wrong."
-Rob Stone

Rob, if the statistics don’t directly support your claims it doesn’t matter what the numbers are. Throwing numbers out there that don’t prove the point you are trying to make is BS. You haven’t even argued how my counterpoints were misconstrued or failed to refute your claims. Now you just want to run away and scream “NO YOU DIDN’T” like a child as you give up.

Rob Stone

David, I think it's time for you to throw in the towel.

After baselessly berating me for not providing evidence, you get called out for not providing evidence for your statements and you can't do it. Instead you lash out with insults or bait me to find the evidence for your claims myself. You might as well throw your hands in the air and cry "no mas." I'm not going to keep playing with someone who has clearly given up and just keeps repeating the same things over and over.

Example of your absurdity:

"Where is your evidence supporting discrimination is either exclusively or primarily focused on women, gays, and people of color?"--David Jackson

Rob Stone then provides a link that shows an abudnace of discrimination against women.

Then David Jackson responds with this straw man: "This website focuses ONLY on sex discrimination and harassment, how does it in ANY way prove there is no discrimination against straight, white, men? They don’t even address it."

See? You ask me to prove discrimination focused on women and then you cry because my evidence didn't show anti-male discrimination.

Then you make silly comments about statistics and scholarly research that I provided (with no counter-evidence) and you pretend you've debunked the evidence. The stats directly support my claims and that's just very inconvenient for you.

David, nowhere have you proved that there is significant discrimination against men because they are men, or whites because they are white, or straight people because they are straight. I have shown time and time again that there is significant discrimination against women because they are women, people of color because they are people of color, and gays because they are gay.

Our society was formed and influenced by a straight, white, male dominated culture. It has, and does, favor straight, white, men. These things are evident to the rest of the country but, for some absurd reasoning, not to you. Since no amount of evidence or logic works with you, I'm finished with absurd bickering.

David Jackson

“After baselessly berating me for not providing evidence, you get called out for not providing evidence for your statements and you can't do it….”
-Rob Stone

Lol, and back to lying and projecting I see. I have repeatedly given you examples you have not refuted. You again ignore arguments and post lies in an attempt to appear righteous and get the last word. Too bad a simple recap of our earlier discussion proves this for the BS it is.

BTW, come up with any evidence Mississippi or any other US State is trying to disrupt minorities from voting yet? Or are you going to run away from that too after being proved wrong instead of owning up to your fabrication like a man would?


“See? You ask me to prove discrimination focused on women and then you cry because my evidence didn't show anti-male discrimination.”
“Then you make silly comments about statistics and scholarly research that I provided (with no counter-evidence) and you pretend you've debunked the evidence. The stats directly support my claims and that's just very inconvenient for you.”
-Rob Stone

I won’t bother to ask as it is apparent you really are mentally challenged. Statistics that were designed from the onset to find what discrimination happens against only women, or minorities, or gays, etc. but did nothing to research what discrimination also happens to men, or whites, or heterosexuals, IN NO WAY shows that there is no discrimination against men, whites, or homosexuals. This is pretty basic Rob. If you can’t understand that you need to stop posting your opinion in a public forum because you are an embarrassment to your own politics. If you do understand that, yet in order to save face ignore it and instead decide to simply throw up statistics in an attempt to look good, you are still an embarrassment to your politics but are also guilty of being a fraud.

Your so called evidence has been disproved as being evidence for your argument. I especially like how you ignored your own post about discrimination against handicapped people after I pointed it out to you lol! How about you own up to your rhetoric and post something that says men aren’t discriminated against, whites aren’t discriminated against, and heterosexuals are not discriminated against? You will of course have to ignore all the instances where men are arrested for domestic violence for an open hand slap when the women did that to them in the same fight without consequence, when whites are denied tuition assistance not because of lacking academic merit or need based on household income but because they are white, or when heterosexuals who want to marry two other people or a cousin they are denied it because who they love isn’t legally allowed. But then again, I’m sure you will just ignore this point just like you ignored whose heart was beating when basic logic disproved your bogus abortion=women’s rights BS.


“David, nowhere have you proved that there is significant discrimination against men because they are men, or whites because they are white, or straight people because they are straight. I have shown time and time again that there is significant discrimination against women because they are women, people of color because they are people of color, and gays because they are gay.”
-Rob Stone

Another cowardly lie in a shameful attempt to declare victory and run away. Yes I have Rob, see above. If those readily available examples aren’t good enough for you see my previous argument below where I outlined discrimination against men when it comes to child custody and alimony. OR you can find your own statements where you blamed men for war or whites for bigotry. I also discussed how discrimination against straights, whites, and men, can happen even if it has nothing to do with their skin, gender, or orientation, and for you to focus on such is sexist/racist or at the very least sex and race baiting propaganda. You couldn’t even respond to that as it’s another example of discrimination that goes against your dogma thus you will pretend it doesn’t exist. You’re like a cult member.


“Our society was formed and influenced by a straight, white, male dominated culture. It has, and does, favor straight, white, men. These things are evident to the rest of the country but, for some absurd reasoning, not to you. Since no amount of evidence or logic works with you, I'm finished with absurd bickering.”
-Rob Stone

NOTHING you posted supports that very sexist and very racist crackpot theory. Only an inexperienced gender and race baiter who has spent their entire life in academia or politics would jump to such a conclusion. Oh and hate to burst your bubble, but the rest of the country doesn’t swallow that cool-aid either. Just the sexist and racist ones, some of whom can be found committing vandalism and assault against Caucasians and Hispanics in the street because some other race baiters got them all riled up.

You’re just like the Jessie Jacksons, Al Sharptons, AG Holders, Pres Obamas, and yellow main stream media of the world when it comes to the recent Zimmerman acquittal. It doesn’t really matter what the facts are, it only matters what racist divisive garbage you can get the ignorant closet-bigot, masses, you have yourself worked to keep ignorant and bigoted, to believe so you can get them out in the street chanting. Once they’re there you have minions who will follow you to right the “injustice” even if you invented it out of thin air. Go ahead and be finished throwing out indirectly related statistics and evasive responses. I’ve punched so many holes in your rhetoric and propaganda you should have given up months ago. Too funny.

Rob Stone

"NOTHING you posted supports that very sexist and very racist crackpot theory. Only an inexperienced gender and race baiter who has spent their entire life in academia or politics would jump to such a conclusion."--David Jackson

EVERYTHING I've posted supports what social and anthropological studies reveal. Only an experienced racist and sexist who has spend their entire life shaping an alternate reality to protect their prejudices would deny the obvious. My last word on this page:

"Social dominance theory, formulated by Sidanius and Pratto (1999), is designed to explain the origin and consequence of social hierarchies and oppression."
http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/98044356.pdf

Social dominance theory (SDT) begins with the observation that human societies are structured as group-based social hierarchies, with dominant groups enjoying a disproportionate amount of positive social value (e.g., wealth, power, and status) while subordinate groups suffer from a disproportionate amount of negative social value (e.g., poverty, stigmatization, and imprisonment; see Pratto,1999; Sidanius, 1993; Sidanius & Pratto, 1993, 1999). SD theorists argue that group-based social hierarchies can be classified into three distinct categories: a) an age-system, in which adults and middle-age people have disproportionate social power over children and younger adults,1 b) a patriarchical-system in which males have disproportionate social and political power compared to females, and c) an arbitrary-set system. The arbitrary-set system is composed of socially constructed and salient group categories related to dimensions such as race, ethnicity, caste, clan, social class, estate, nation, religious sect, region, or any other socially relevant distinctions which the human imagination is capable of constructing. While there are a number of similarities in the structural and functional characteristics of the patriarchical and arbitrary-set systems of social stratification, each system is functionally unique and plays a different role in the overall construction and maintenance of group-based social hierarchy."
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~alambert/Sidanius%26Veniegas.pdf

"Social Dominance Orientation: A Personality Variable Predicting Social
and Political Attitudes"
Felicia Pratto, Jim Sidanius, Lisa M. Stallworth, and Bertram F. Malle
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3207711/Sidanius_SocialDominanceOrientation.pdf?sequence=1

"Social Dominance Theory: The U.S. Minority Experience"
http://journey24pointoh.com/2011/09/04/social-dominance-theory-the-u-s-minority-experience/

No amount of insults and lies will dissuade me from the truth, based on reality and critical examination, not on straight, white, male bias.

David Jackson

You keep saying you have given your final word, and then you go onto post more statements claiming I’m a sexist racist when you are the only one out of the two of us who sees fit to cast blame for societal issues on a particular sex and race.

Just read through your links. Which one of these links on social dominance theory proves that American social hierarchies and discrimination/oppression in America, is based upon white, heterosexual, male dominance over everyone else? That “clan, social class, and estate” are not as prevalent in American social hierarchies as race, ethnicity, sex, and gender? Oh that’s right…NONE of them! Yet you post these links here to support your sex/race baiting claim of a straight, white, male dominated culture which favors only straight, white, men. More so called evidence that doesn’t actually support your claims. Good work with that “critical examination” of yours Rob.

Please actually make good on your statement that you have given you final word. This sex and race baiting prejudice of yours is certainly no “truth” and has run its course. Reality does not coincide with your extremist politics.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.