MONDAY'S SUNDAY STORY

[awaken21]

"So," Monday says in a tone of restrained excitement, or rather as restrained an excitement as a 12 year old girl gets. "We set ground rules for the sparring or errrr... fighting, whatever," she waives off the words to forge ahead with the tale. "No punching, kicking, elbows or knees or any other kind of strike, and all the other normal safety rules are in play. Win is if you pin the other person to the ground or the other person taps out or is KO'd by choke hold. Which Dee agrees to."
Dee is Monday's neighborhood sidekick. He is also 12. At 5"5' Monday is tallish for a 12 year old girl. Dee is an inch shorter but much stronger in comparison as his muscles have already started to thicken earlier in his preteen boy body. Monday and Dee are about to settle a question that has been developing since they first met in the neighborhood as kids but has rapidly come to a head in recent months since Dee was forced to go to Kenpo Karate lessons by his mother. Dee had always voiced doubt concerning Monday's Jiu Jitsu skills. But now that he knew enough about fighting arts to actually test them, sort of, the moment couldn't be passed up.
"I honestly thought he might win" Monday confesses.
"How many times did you win?" I ask seriously.
"Out of 6 times I won 5," Monday responds."And the 6th time I let him win, and he admitted I let him win."
"He is almost a civilian." I remind her.
"Yeah but..." Monday pauses trying to form the words and finally "I just thought it would be harder."
"That's because you only have the point of view of training with other non-civilians, and in a mostly competitive environment," I point out. "You will tend to underestimate your skills. Anyway how was it? Details please."
"Well first of all" Monday begins. "He kept making the same mistakes over and over. So most of the time we'd grab arms and shirts, he'd try a weak version of something like a throw, I'd reverse him and we'd end up on ground where I'd finish with something. He was so awkward and slow I actually had time to do mental eye rolls."
"Finish with what?" I ask
"I pinned him 3 times and 2 times he tapped out," she continues. "One of the times I threw him we ended up with me on my back and him above me, with his back to me and in my guard. I got the choke hold on him and he was ah... uncomfortable. But it wasn't until I wrapped my legs around him and stretched him out, like you've coached me, that he really started turning blue."
"So he tapped out?" I asked.
"Not at first," She says flatly. "I think at first he thought I'd let go before he went to sleep cause I'm normally sweet and easy going. He has no idea how I was raised. He tapped I think only seconds before he went out though."
"Second time he didn't wait so long I bet," I say.
"Not even close. 2nd time he tapped as soon as he felt the hold tighten. But here's the thing," she went on. "I was curious cause, well, I know you've told me it doesn't hurt them and they wake up in a minute or so and they are fine, no damage short or long term..." she breaths a pause then seems resigned to something. "I was tempted to ignore the tap and let him go out. Both times"
"What?!" I'm surprised.
"I've never done it, I know it doesn't hurt anyone, and of course I didn't do it this time at all... I'm just really really curious." She finishes.
"I get it," I say thoughtfully. "But look, odds are as a woman you will see it happen in your life because you'll have been forced into it by some idiot of the male gender. But you can't force it, you have to wait for it to come to you. It's the right thing to do. And overall all the little details will tend to..."
"... work out better for me." She finishes.
"I would tend to believe so, yes." I reply.
"OK, yea I get that," She agrees thoughtfully. "I'll wait for it."
We look at each other for moment. I say "Use your super powers for good."
Suddenly we are helpless belly laughing together.

[Kitty P]

"awaken21" wrote in message
news:fe06b6f3-444b-499d...@googlegroups.com...

-------------------------

Not bad. I was watching Eyes Wide Shut with a male friend on Sunday. I
wondered out loud that men don't seem to understand 1) what goes on in
women's mind, 2) to never take for granted that what is going on in most
women's minds will always be sweet and to their benefit. The look on my
friend's face was confused and I'm sure he was pondering his past
relationships. Most men don't believe it though, sometimes to their
detriment if they piss off their wives, girlfriends, or the waitress serving
their food.
Kitty

[awaken21]

Live and Die In LA

Also still one of my favorite theme songs too.

People as a general rule can be treacherously difficult to read. Having a bias based on gender is just such a huge misunderstanding of basic principles.

[Love]

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:51:58 -0700 (PDT), awaken21
<lukec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> People as a general rule can be treacherously difficult to read.
Having a bias based on gender is just such a huge misunderstanding of
basic principles.

Failure to make good, broad working generalisations is quite a
handicap, and gender generalisations are some of the easiest to make
accurately. They become "biases", I think, when we try to make
principles of them. Eg., it is true that most extreme acts of
violence (aggravated assault and up, say) are not commited by
females. Turning that into a principle like "women are not capable of
extreme violence" would be a mistake, whereas assuming that they are
unlikely to become a source of it in most situations is just good
generalisation.

--
Love

[Kitty P]

"Love" wrote in message
news:almarsoft.4107...@darylkinsman.ca...

Love
---------------------

Generalizations hardly ever work anyway. But the one generalization we can
make, is what Luke wrote - we don't know the minds of other people. I find
it a little scary that women's potential for violence is dismissed though.
Some studies show that women who are caught are more covert in their
aggression, and can be violent on parity with men in hypothetical
situations. I think the only thing stopping many women from being more
violent is that they don't want to endanger their children or risk being
taken away from their children. But that's just a gut feeling.

Kitty

[awaken21]

Also I think it's worth noting that just because women aren't usually the point of the spear in violent situations, assuming they are therefore less involved in cultivating the violent outcome is in itself an expression of a male based bias. Completely overlooks the circumstance women find themselves in, who they influence and how much, and how they respond to their options.

[Wilson]

Some statistics I've read say that women are responsible for close to
half of domestic violence. However it's standard procedure for many
police agencies to arbitrarily bring charges against the larger of the
two individuals involved in a domestic violence situation since it's
often impossible to determine who is at fault. And because guys should,
you know, man up.

--
Wilson

[Love]

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 07:46:36 -0700, "Kitty P" <kitty...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Generalizations hardly ever work anyway.

If by "work" you mean "perfectly predict specifics", you're right.
But, generalisation is how we function. Generalisations do most of
the lifting for us every minute of every day. For example, working on
the generalisation that women (or senior citizens) are unlikely
sources of extreme violent crime is just efficient. Imagine working
on the opposite assumption: you'd be delusional.

--
Love

[Love]

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 10:47:01 -0700 (PDT), awaken21
<lukec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also I think it's worth noting that just because women aren't

usually the p=

> oint of the spear in violent situations, assuming they are

therefore less i=

> nvolved in cultivating the violent outcome is in itself an

expression of a =

> male based bias. Completely overlooks the circumstance women find

themselve=

> s in, who they influence and how much, and how they respond to

their optio=
> ns.

Oh man I know some circles you'd get in trouble talking like that.

--
Love

[awaken21]

Looks delusional making either assumption. Seems to me not making any assumptions on an individual basis is really the only sensible option.

[Kitty P]

"Wilson" wrote in message
news:4aWdnX_hl6GHA5DL...@supernews.com...

Wilson
----------------------------------

The dynamic of family abuse is complicated. Sometimes the person who is
abused (mostly female, but males more than people might think-although the
most recent local stats show primarily gay men) - will escalate a situation
to move the cycle along. It usually always follows a pattern. Get beaten,
make up, a period of calm...but able to tell the irritation is starting
again...so sometimes escalate it sooner through antagonistic behaviors to
get it over and get back to the make up and peace. Over and over. It would
take an average of talking to women, and sometimes men, an average of twelve
times on the hotline I worked on until they would do something. If more
people knew about the cycle, maybe the more people could identify it sooner.
Because if they don't, the ending can be death for one or the other...I'm
not sure about the stats today, but then a lot of women offed their abusers
to protect themselves and ended up in prison anyway.

But you're right - heterosexual men who are physically abused by their
partners are reluctant to get help. Another incidence where men are damaged
by our culture. IMO
Kitty

[Love]

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 16:56:54 -0400, Wilson <phwi...@nowhere.net>
wrote:

> Some statistics I've read say that women are responsible for close
to
> half of domestic violence. However it's standard procedure for
many
> police agencies to arbitrarily bring charges against the larger of
the
> two individuals involved in a domestic violence situation since
it's
> often impossible to determine who is at fault. And because guys
should,
> you know, man up.

I know a guy who got cuffed for assaulting a woman. He was sitting,
she flew at him, wrapped her hands around his neck and began choking
him. He brought his foot up, planted it on her chest and pushed her
away. Police arrived, she screamed assault and showed them the
footprint. It wasn't until things calmed down and he convinced them
to look at his neck that they reversed themselves and charged her
instead. Meanwhile he was restrained and she wasn't. They protected
the wrong person and made the actual victim more vulnerable in the
presence of his assailant for a time. It was a clear case of gender
bias IMO.

I know another guy whose ex used to threaten him and assault him. She
even put some bullets through his window, in the final spiral of
escalation. The cops never charged her with assault despite slam dunk
evidence. He finally got a restraining order, which the police
wouldn't act on. She showed up at his shop one day to assault him,
which she did, but this time he fought back, restrained her with
handcuffs and dragged her to the police station in person. They
finally did their job. I think he was lucky they didn't arrest him.

The degree to which we expect men to "man up" amounts to systemic
misandry IMO. Since men are under social pressure to always appear
strong, or at least not admit weakness or victimhood, it continues.
Men enforce it as much as women do, in a way exactly analogous to the
way women once were equal partners in the maintenance of systemic
misogyny.

One of the few truly biological mental differences between men and
women as groups is what testosterone does to people's reactions to
the sensation of losing a contest to someone else. The higher the t
level the more uncomfortable it becomes and the angrier they get.
This has been demonstrated in women. Raise their t levels and their
reactions to defeat mirror those of men. Knowing this, it suddenly
becomes comprehensible why women seem to give their victimisers a
pass so often and blame themselves. It also becomes comprehensible
why men deny having actually been victims.

I've always thought that the feminist theory of overall asymmetry was
flawed, and only possible to sustain rhetorically by picking and
choosing the measures by which it is demonstrated. For example, we
hear about the wage gap but not the workplace injury gap. Asymmetry
in violence undeniably exists, as does asymmetry in wages, but does
an unexamined dimension equivalent to the workplace injury gap exist?

More anecdotes collected in my life. I knew a couple in which the
wife regularly got beaten by her alcoholic husband. It turns that she
would buy him the booze, get him drunk, then deliberately provoke
him. His regret and guilt gave her all the power in the relationship,
on top of her being the real wage earner. (He eventually drank
himself to death.) I witnessed this phenomenon one other time in a
different couple at a party. I was about to step in after a drunk guy
punched his gf in the mouth. A friend stepped in and stopped me. He
knew what their pattern was and told me. I was sceptical at first but
a minute's observation confirmed it. She was using his weakness to
control him, not at all the traumatised cowed victim of the "violence
against women" narrative. That narrative isn't untrue; it just isn't
the only true narrative.

--
Love

[Love]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:31:57 -0700 (PDT), awaken21
<lukec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > the generalisation that women (or senior citizens) are unlikely
> > sources of extreme violent crime is just efficient. Imagine
working
> > on the opposite assumption: you'd be delusional.

> Looks delusional making either assumption. Seems to me not making
any assumptions on an individual basis is really the only sensible
option.

Not practical to assess 100% of everything individually. This is why
city dwellers avoid every flying insect instead of trying to
differentiate between ones likely to bite or sting and harmless ones.
The generalisation isn't that most flying insects bite us. The
generalisation is that avoiding them all is more economical. That
reverses in country dwellers, who find the opposite, avoiding no
flying insects without probable grounds, more economical.

--
Love

[Love]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 13:04:51 -0700, "Kitty P" <kitty...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> The dynamic of family abuse is complicated. Sometimes the person
who is
> abused (mostly female, but males more than people might
think-although the
> most recent local stats show primarily gay men) - will escalate a
situation
> to move the cycle along. It usually always follows a pattern. Get
beaten,
> make up, a period of calm...but able to tell the irritation is
starting
> again...so sometimes escalate it sooner through antagonistic
behaviors to
> get it over and get back to the make up and peace. Over and over.
It would
> take an average of talking to women, and sometimes men, an average
of twelve
> times on the hotline I worked on until they would do something. If
more
> people knew about the cycle, maybe the more people could identify
it sooner.
> Because if they don't, the ending can be death for one or the
other...I'm
> not sure about the stats today, but then a lot of women offed their
abusers

It seems so obvious when I read it but this pattern is actually news
to me, though not entirely different from another I just reported.

Perhaps this is why I like cats. Often subtle but never really
complicated.

--
Love

[Kitty P]

"Love" wrote in message
news:almarsoft.4505...@darylkinsman.ca...

Love
---------------------------

As what can be considered an old crone feminist - I get upset over the
cultural twisting of what we fought for in this iteration of feminism from
the 70s. All we wanted then, and all we wish for now, is equal pay for equal
work and access to equal jobs if we are qualified. Nothing more. Nothing
less. The rest is mostly backlash from angry white men. IMO

Kitty

[liaM]

Very interesting. This may just account for the fact that in many
Islamist communities, the husband is always judged right whatever way he
treats his wives.

This leads to a wonderfully philosophical consequence. I'm not sure
where I read this. The advice to wives who live under a despot
is always to tell him he's right. Of course he's right. It's Allah's
will, inchallah. Meanwhile women who are smarter than their
man get by with murder, you see :)

[Kitty P]

"liaM" wrote in message news:mupafm$ffd$1...@dont-email.me...

-------------------

Exactly!

[awaken21]

There are people, like policemen, who do have to sort through them one by one and then answer for their actions. Starting from a foundation of knowledge, even if it's just the knowledge a different area of expertise is required, is probably better than just winging it with cultural bias and personal prejudice.

[Love]

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 05:21:00 -0700, "Kitty P" <kitty...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> As what can be considered an old crone feminist - I get upset over
the
> cultural twisting of what we fought for in this iteration of
feminism from
> the 70s. All we wanted then, and all we wish for now, is equal pay
for equal
> work and access to equal jobs if we are qualified. Nothing more.
Nothing
> less. The rest is mostly backlash from angry white men. IMO

Man I almost wish that were true. It would make things much simpler.

I'm not missing the fact that "equal" does not mean "the same". No
one, not even "angry white men" (if that 70's stereotype was ever
true) will argue with same pay for same work. But women can't be
enticed to do the same work in the same numbers. (Which I consider
proof that they are at least as smart as men.) So we switch to fuzzy
terms like "equal" to try to characterise the wage gap as being
caused by men (angry white misogynists, even) because there can be no
us without a them and feminism is no longer a movement but an
industry, responsible to shareholders. THAT is misandry, in my book.

--
Love

[Love]

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:33:57 +0200, liaM <cud...@mindless.com> wrote:
> will, inchallah. Meanwhile women who are smarter than their
> man get by with murder, you see :)

And that should be about 50% of all women, statistically, plus some
positive number to allow for the fact that a very high percentage of
men in those cultures will underestimate the intelligence of their
women.

--
Love

[Love]

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 07:59:34 -0700, "Kitty P" <kitty...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Meanwhile women who are smarter than their
> man get by with murder, you see :)

> Exactly!

You're killing me here!

--
Love

[Love]

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 15:56:45 -0700 (PDT), awaken21
<lukec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are people, like policemen, who do have to sort through them

one by o=

> ne and then answer for their actions. Starting from a foundation of

knowled=

> ge, even if it's just the knowledge a different area of expertise

is requir=

> ed, is probably better than just winging it with cultural bias and

personal=
> prejudice.

Well that's the trick to good generalisation -- knowing what's bias
and what is not -- isn't it?

Preferentially investigating young males first over senior citizens
and females in most crimes of extreme violence is just prudent use of
the non-infinite policing budget. Failing to investigate the woman
with blood dripping from her brass knuckles is not.

--
Love

[awaken21]

Not anger. Greed. It's caused by corporate management supported by laws that have been placed on the books by the same group of white guys through their paid for oligarchs. It's a type of greed since they never have to explain why they're paying their women less, the people involved will get fired with no legal recourse if they discuss pay with each other. The decision maker gets more money for his other budget concerns or to show as profit. History has shown that misogyny can help drive the bottom line in such as way as to be almost irresistible for those tasked with driving profit.

[awaken21]

Don't get me started on senior citizens... EVERY BIT AS DANGEROUS AND TREACHEROUS AS A PERSON OF ANY OTHER AGE. This is why random selection at security points works better than trying to guess what you cannot know.

[Sanford M. Manley]

On 10/5/2015 12:03 AM, awaken21 wrote:
> Don't get me started on senior citizens... EVERY BIT AS DANGEROUS
AND TREACHEROUS AS A PERSON OF ANY OTHER AGE. This is why random
selection at security points works better than trying to guess
what you cannot know.

Nice theory. Why is it then that we do not have dozens of
old folk with nothing to lose dressed up as suicide bombers?
Why is it always the young?

--
Sanford

[awaken21]

How many people in the US have been killed suicide bombers?
How many by handguns?
How many by assault weapons?

Just facts.

Now as far old people you should maybe start keeping track when you see an article on violent altercations instigated by seniors.
They're humurous you'll like them. But they're also serious and it happens, often.

[awaken21]

On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 12:34:10 AM UTC-4, Sanford Manley wrote:

Here's some interesting related facts on the dangers of white supremacy vs muslim extremists within the borders of the U.S.. Ever met a white supremacist over the the age of 60? I have.


http://yhoo.it/1KW6lDG

[Sanford M. Manley]

I described a subset of violence and treachery which is
included in "every bit." I asked a question. If you don't
want to answer it, fine.



--
Sanford

[Sanford M. Manley]

On 10/5/2015 12:05 PM, awaken21 wrote:
> Here's some interesting related facts on the dangers of
white supremacy vs muslim extremists within the borders
of the U.S.. Ever met a white supremacist over the
the age of 60? I have.

Don't worry about it Luke. You made a very broad assertion.
I asked a question. You don't have to answer.


--
Sanford

[Sanford M. Manley]

On 10/5/2015 12:24 PM, Sanford M. Manley wrote:
> I described a subset of violence and treachery which is
> included in "every bit." I asked a question. If you don't
> want to answer it, fine.

I put you back in my kill file so I am not
tempted to contradict you as I am once again
ignorant of the fact you are always right.

Have a nice day.

--
Sanford

[Wilson]

If it's all about greed, if paying women less for the same work is
really so commonplace, wouldn't it be extremely profitable for a company
to hire only women? Why don't those greedy angry white CEOs take
advantage of this?

The gender wage gap is a statistical myth. It doesn't compare two
similarly situated co-workers of different sexes working in the same
industry and performing the same work for the same number of hours a
day. It merely reflects the median earnings of all men women classified
as full-time workers.

The labor department time usage survey finds that the average full time
working man spends 8.14 hours a day on the job compared to 7.75 hours
for the average woman. Employees who work more tend to get paid more.

Men often take jobs with less desirable characteristics in pursuit of
higher pay. They choose to work in more dangerous types of work than
women, and work more years (because more women take years off for
children).

When years on the job, hours worked per week, and the actual job is
figured in, there is virtually no difference. Women who do equal work
on equal jobs in the US generally get equal pay. Because it's the law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa3pKN3XUKM&feature=youtu.be

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

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

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/women_science_no_discrimination_says_cornell_study-75984

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

http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-wage-gap/job-distribution-by-gender

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

http://www.sify.com/news/women-stay-away-from-math-out-of-their-own-free-choice-news-scitech-kk1lubiiiee.html

[awaken21]

They are. No one's claiming it's the only tool in their box of nastiness. It's still extremely profitable to hire women en mass at the lowest wages in the most menial jobs possible. No one ever said there's not other ways that being used to skin the profit cat.

>
> The gender wage gap is a statistical myth.

Interestingly similar to your grasp of statistics?

[Wilson]

So you're not able to read the links? Or even watch the video?

Oh I see, you're all warm and fuzzy in your cocoon of feelings? Well
then carry on.

[awaken21]

I call mirror mirror.

[awaken21]

I'm willing to try as always though. I don't miss questions on purpose.

[Kitty P]

"awaken21" wrote in message
news:51f6419a-ce56-4c16...@googlegroups.com...

Ameneroo. For most of my career, I received less money for jobs that
demanded a college degree and a certain number of years experience-but
always made less than the white male custodians where I worked. I was happy
for them - but c'mon. It is still happening and there are actually pretty
good, reliable statistics to back up the fact that there is inequality. It
will be interesting to see what the supreme court says regarding affirmative
action.

Kitty

[awaken21]

I get how a person could end up feeling this way around me. Charles something something pretty much nailed it many years ago "It has to be all your way." Which seems true here because I love to engage the debate. But really I don't care who's right. In actual life I'm a go with the flow person. I feel like we're all here building sandcastles and knocking others down and mostly at the end of the day we all go home to our lives and these sandcastles get eaten up by the tide every night while we're home sharing dinner. You have a great one too.

[Wilson]

Some humor, maybe:

https://41.media.tumblr.com/b930f76ca2d740cdf90e08307d768881/tumblr_nvjpr1Te1b1raq157o1_500.png

[brian mitchell]

[Kitty P]

"Wilson" wrote in message
news:tsGdnaW6zJPYVI_L...@supernews.com...

That was good!

[Love]

> Not anger. Greed. It's caused by corporate management supported by

laws tha=

> t have been placed on the books by the same group of white guys

through the=

> ir paid for oligarchs. It's a type of greed since they never have

to explai=

> n why they're paying their women less, the people involved will get

fired w=

> ith no legal recourse if they discuss pay with each other. The

decision mak=

> er gets more money for his other budget concerns or to show as

profit. Hist=

> ory has shown that misogyny can help drive the bottom line in such

as way a=

> s to be almost irresistible for those tasked with driving profit.

Now we're talking. Sexism, racism, sexuality discrimination, fear of
immigrants, etc., are all tools to keep the 99% focussed on
irrelevant "others". Women vs. Men of course was the most brilliant
stroke: an exact 50/50 divide and simultaneously bound to double
family debt within a generation.

--
Love

[Love]

Actually more dangerous, BUT, to my original point, almost never the
best suspect in crimes of extreme violence like aggravated assault.
Old folks can be the people slyly creating the circumstances that
become visible as violence by young people, or the people that
directly command that violence, but are rarely the immediate
perpetrators. And when they are, they'll probably never be
discovered, because they are patient and methodical and wise.

--
Love

[Love]

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 11:58:02 -0700 (PDT), awaken21
<lukec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I get how a person could end up feeling this way around me. Charles

somethi=

> ng something pretty much nailed it many years ago "It has to be all

your wa=

> y." Which seems true here because I love to engage the debate. But

really I=

> don't care who's right. In actual life I'm a go with the flow

person. I fe=

> el like we're all here building sandcastles and knocking others

down and mo=

> stly at the end of the day we all go home to our lives and these

sandcastle=

> s get eaten up by the tide every night while we're home sharing

dinner. Y=

> ou have a great one too.

My attitude exactly. It can infuriate people sometimes. I learn by
arguing, and the harder I make it for you to counter me the better
the potential for me to discover something new. It isn't about
wanting to be right at all, though asserting my thoughts with full
vigour is the method.

Had a PhD phil. prof. just plain tell me I was wrong the other day.
He demonstrated full understanding of my position before that, not
some twisty exercise in applied ideology but real grokking. It was so
frakking satisfying I didn't even want the explanation. I'll get it
someday and I know it will be good. I actively seek people who can
push back at least as hard as I can push. What's not to love about
that?

--
Love

[Love]

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 12:32:37 -0400, Wilson <phwi...@nowhere.net>
wrote:

> If it's all about greed, if paying women less for the same work is
> really so commonplace, wouldn't it be extremely profitable for a
company
> to hire only women? Why don't those greedy angry white CEOs take
> advantage of this?

Actually, they used to. Sorry to say Kitty's perspective is a little
rooted in the 70's.

I worked in manufacturing. The time cards themselves were divided
into female and male classifications. The primary distinction being
female labour paid less. Some women had male labour cards, and the
other way around, but mostly not. It was a throwback system but
interestingly still embedded in a plant in the 80's.

--
Love

[Love]

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 09:41:44 -0700 (PDT), awaken21
<lukec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The gender wage gap is a statistical myth.

> Interestingly similar to your grasp of statistics?

The theory that misogyny is the root of the gender wage gap is a myth
manufactured by skillful misuse of statistics.

The gender wage gap itself is not a myth. It's just a bare
statistical fact. The myth is what we're led to believe it means.

--
Love

[Kitty P]

"Love" wrote in message
news:almarsoft.1179...@darylkinsman.ca...

Love
-------------------

I don't think it's hating women either. It is economic, but also has a
value driven bias that favors the concept of male head of household...which
is a myth. Also, if you are male and think women can't do your job, it's
just stupid rather than hateful.
Kitty

[Kitty P]

"Love" wrote in message
news:almarsoft.3546...@darylkinsman.ca...

Love
------------

Oh honey. You do realize you live in Canada.

[Kitty P]

"Love" wrote in message
news:almarsoft.5421...@darylkinsman.ca...

Love
---------------------

Work place equality is actually what I am, and most women are talking about.
It isn't men vs women. I'm not sure why whenever we talk about monetary
equity that comes up? Some men probably hate women, but most of the time if
there is inequity - it is either financial, or they are just uncomfortable
working with them because they are different. People like to hire people who
are more like them. You see it in the animal world...why not humans? It
takes effort to change that concept. Why did I get paid less for years?
When I asked, I was told it was because I was married and didn't need as
much money as the men who were supporting their families. That is a true
statement. After talking to an attorney, she said I would win a law suit,
but most likely lose my career. That was the late 90s.

The focus on 'that' equality has been working in urban areas of the U.S. as
well as your urban areas in Canada. But is slower for the rural and
everything in between. But in the U.S., the moves to make family planning
unavailable is a sign that it is not over. The President had to make an
order this year that women could receive birth control without a doctor's
prescription because they shut down the majority, and in some cases all, of
the family planning facilities in southern states because of the abortion
issue. Congress is threatening to shut down the government until Planned
Parenthood federal dollars are eliminated from the budget. They can't use
federal money for abortions....so those will continue whether they shut down
the government or not. Although there are a myriad of reasons for all of
this - the end result in the big picture does affect women's work lives that
are dependent on family planning. It isn't women vs men. But it very well
mean religious assholes against women?

Kitty

[Kitty P]

"Love" wrote in message
news:almarsoft.9227...@darylkinsman.ca...

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:33:57 +0200, liaM <cud...@mindless.com> wrote:
> will, inchallah. Meanwhile women who are smarter than their
> man get by with murder, you see :)

And that should be about 50% of all women, statistically, plus some
positive number to allow for the fact that a very high percentage of
men in those cultures will underestimate the intelligence of their
women.
Love
------------------------

Yep

[Kitty P]

"awaken21" wrote in message
news:4ecf4ad1-2ec0-4484...@googlegroups.com...

On Sunday, October 4, 2015 at 9:30:58 PM UTC-4, Love wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 15:56:45 -0700 (PDT), awaken21
> <lukec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There are people, like policemen, who do have to sort through them
> one by o=
> > ne and then answer for their actions. Starting from a foundation of
> knowled=
> > ge, even if it's just the knowledge a different area of expertise
> is requir=
> > ed, is probably better than just winging it with cultural bias and
> personal=
> > prejudice.
>
> Well that's the trick to good generalisation -- knowing what's bias
> and what is not -- isn't it?
>
> Preferentially investigating young males first over senior citizens
> and females in most crimes of extreme violence is just prudent use of
> the non-infinite policing budget. Failing to investigate the woman
> with blood dripping from her brass knuckles is not.
>
> --
> Love

Don't get me started on senior citizens... EVERY BIT AS DANGEROUS AND
TREACHEROUS AS A PERSON OF ANY OTHER AGE. This is why random selection at
security points works better than trying to guess what you cannot know.

------------------

The example of that is moi. snort

Kitty

[Kitty P]

"Sanford M. Manley" wrote in message news:muu8f1$d9p$3...@dont-email.me...

Sanford
---------------

It's true that senior citizens aren't as high a risk to commit more than
petty crime. But it doesn't mean we aren't as dangerous if provoked -
Dateline makes a person's skin crawl with the viciousness old folks can
think up to do. But in terms of amount? - naw.

Kitty

[awaken21]

Zackly.

[awaken21]

Ok, now you're going to force me to start trolling the news. I actually do that, but now when I run across one I'll tag it for later. :) They ARE funny, like silver haired gents throwing down in Jewish Temple. But can be serious, like the arrest of Whitey Bulger.

[daletx]

"Peering down at Richards, Representative John Duncan Jr., a Tennessee
Republican, noted that the Boys & Girls Clubs of America “received $26
million from the federal government, compared to your $528 million.
Seems a little bit lopsided to me.”

Richards mildly noted that as much as she respected the Boys & Girls
Clubs, it doesn’t do a whole lot in the way of providing health care
services to Medicaid recipients."
...
"Her interrogators also harped on her salary, which is more than
$520,000 a year. It’s a lot of cash, but not a stunning amount of money
for a job at that level...

The base salary for the head of the Boys & Girls Clubs, by the way, is
$576,000."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/opinion/gail-collins-planned-parenthood-talks.html

I like Cecile almost as much as I liked her momma.

DT

[Kitty P]

"daletx" wrote in message news:mv0vm...@news7.newsguy.com...

-------------------

Wow! I can't believe I haven't put it together about her mother. I've seen a
lot of interviews with Cecile - she's like a combination rock star, super
model, and smarter than anyone in the room kind of person. Just like her
mom.

Kitty

[brian mitchell]

Don't know if this will appeal...

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06flmgr

Alice's Wunderland -- Genderwars (28 minutes)

Some of the references may be too Brit-based, but listen out for the Illuminati Puppets.

[Love]

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 08:16:58 -0700, "Kitty P" <kitty...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Oh honey. You do realize you live in Canada.

Oh frak, you're right, it doesn't look at all like Jaipur out my
window. Wah!

--
Love

[Love]

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 08:15:55 -0700, "Kitty P" <kitty...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> I don't think it's hating women either. It is economic, but also
has a
> value driven bias that favors the concept of male head of
household...which
> is a myth. Also, if you are male and think women can't do your job,
it's
> just stupid rather than hateful.

A-yup.

It might be beneficial to consider for a moment what the "male head
of household" bias has actually done to men. Not a pretty thing. I
would call it a net violence against males, overall, not a sign of
male privilege.

--
Love

[Love]

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 08:36:44 -0700, "Kitty P" <kitty...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> unavailable is a sign that it is not over. The President had to
make an
> order this year that women could receive birth control without a
doctor's
> prescription because they shut down the majority, and in some cases
all, of
> the family planning facilities in southern states because of the
abortion
> issue. Congress is threatening to shut down the government until
Planned
> Parenthood federal dollars are eliminated from the budget. They
can't use
> federal money for abortions....so those will continue whether they
shut down
> the government or not. Although there are a myriad of reasons for
all of
> this - the end result in the big picture does affect women's work
lives that
> are dependent on family planning. It isn't women vs men. But it
very well
> mean religious assholes against women?

I'm pretty much lost so I'll take your word for it. "Family planning"
isn't much discussed here and I'd wager a lot of people would say it
means "the plans families make together". "Planned Parenthood" is not
where we go, though I understand the organisation technically exists
here. Every abortion that I personally know of took place in an
ordinary hospital, and your family doctor is where you start for most
things related to reproduction. We had the abortion debate but a
different route to stabilisation. Dr. Morgentaler spearheaded the
effort, the laws adjusted, and hardly anyone wants to discuss it
anymore.

--
Love

[Love]

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 23:47:08 +0100, brian mitchell
<brai...@fishing.net> wrote:
> Don't know if this will appeal...

> www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06flmgr

> Alice's Wunderland -- Genderwars (28 minutes)

> Some of the references may be too Brit-based, but listen out for
the Illuminati Puppets.

For some reason nothing happens when I press what appears to be a
play button.

--
Love

[Kitty P]

"Love" wrote in message
news:almarsoft.3384...@darylkinsman.ca...

Love
-----------

I'm curious what the onus for men is if you could tell me?

In the U.S. 40% of families are female head of household 21% of children
live in poverty in the U.S.-mostly in homes with female head of household
(13% for 18-64 and 10% for 65 and older.)

Kitty

[Kitty P]

"Love" wrote in message
news:almarsoft.5682...@darylkinsman.ca...

Love
--------------------
It's why so many of us love Canada! None of us dreamed this would once again
become an issue in the U.S. after the supreme court decision in Roe vs Wade
in 1973. The way opponents of choice work is to find ways to deny access to
the poor at the state level. No federal dollars go to them (Hyde
Amendment) - so Planned Parenthood finds other money to help those who can't
afford the procedure. To shut down the govt. to shut down Planned
Parenthood to stop abortions in the U.S. shows those fellas are dumber than
rocks.

Kitty

[Love]

On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:36:30 -0700, "Kitty P" <kitty...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Amendment) - so Planned Parenthood finds other money to help those
who can't
> afford the procedure. To shut down the govt. to shut down Planned
> Parenthood to stop abortions in the U.S. shows those fellas are
dumber than
> rocks.

So, it's really mainly about who pays for it. Liberals want poor
people to have abortions because poor people are breeding too many
new poor people, while conservatives want more new poor people so
they have a large pool of people who will work for low wages or enter
the military when they start another war.

I may be slow on the uptake but I'm beginning to understand America,
I think.

--
Love

[Love]

On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 06:46:32 -0700, "Kitty P" <kitty...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> It might be beneficial to consider for a moment what the "male head
> of household" bias has actually done to men. Not a pretty thing. I
> would call it a net violence against males, overall, not a sign of
> male privilege.

> I'm curious what the onus for men is if you could tell me?

Ever heard the phrase "I guess we know who wears the pants in the
family"? Surely I don't need to explain that it is meant to denigrate
and shame. It works.

We are oh-so aware of female self-worth problems, and pretend that it
hasn't been an at least equal nightmare for males. No, they enjoy it.
It's male privilege. Frakking bollocks. A girl cuts herself, pukes
her food, has a shopping addiction, or commits suicide, and it's
because she's been bullied or taught to hate herself or value herself
for the wrong things (things that men like, mainly). A man drinks and
gambles and engages self-destructive behaviour and puts his dick in
paid orifices and it's because he feels male privilege. Bollocks
bollocks bollocks.

--
Love

[brian mitchell]

I can't explain that. It works for me. Sorry.

[Ned Ludd]

"brian mitchell" <brai...@fishing.net> wrote in message
news:ta3b1b9rf7ob5r4db...@4ax.com...

I could play it. And can still play it. I have to admit that
I have a really hard time listening to it. (It's really English,
right?) I'll try one more time.

Ned

[brian mitchell]

Yes, English; though somewhat in the school of Professor Stanley Unwin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuTJETfRoWU

[Love]

On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 14:33:58 -0700, "Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

> >>For some reason nothing happens when I press what appears to be a
> >>play button.

> > I can't explain that. It works for me. Sorry.

> I could play it. And can still play it. I have to admit that

Maybe the site doesn't respond well to mobile devices in former
dominions...

--
Love

[Ned Ludd]

"Love" <sen...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:almarsoft.7406...@darylkinsman.ca...

No man. You're on a list. They've got your name.

Ned

[Love]

On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 19:09:20 -0700, "Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

> No man. You're on a list. They've got your name.

Ya I'm on a list...the list of awesome!

--
Love

[Kitty P]

"Love" wrote in message
news:almarsoft.8545...@darylkinsman.ca...

Love
-----------------------------

I understand what your saying. Truly. The damage to men in this culture has
always been part of the equation. I really was wanting to know what you
meant by that and appreciate your answer.

I see the damage every day with male friends. One finally finally began the
transgender process at 67 after years of pretending through two marriages
and children. My ex husband suffers psychologically every day because he
never felt he was tough or mean enough. I could go on. But here is the deal.
Those are psychological. Women are faced with something different - at least
in the U.S. Actual discrimination and fear of losing health care and just
being able to feed their kids. There are more women in poverty in the U.S.
than men. That poverty is usually women with children and the elderly. Their
food stamps, housing and whatever are challenged every fucking year in a
congress made up of a huge majority of white men. The psychological stuff
needs to be addressed for men as well as women. But the U.S. isn't like
other western countries like Canada. Women actually are under attack right
now in a way that is more than psychological.

[Kitty P]

"Love" wrote in message
news:almarsoft.5099...@darylkinsman.ca...

Love

----------------------

I think you got it! We're all sick - but different kind of sicks.

Kitty

[Sanford M. Manley]

On 10/8/2015 10:35 AM, Kitty P wrote:

> I think you got it! We're all sick - but different kind of sicks.

A BRILLIANT observation.

As I say, "Nobody goes through life without being wounded in some way."

--
Sanford

[Wilson]

On 10/8/2015 10:33 AM, Kitty P wrote:
>
> I understand what your saying. Truly. The damage to men in this culture
> has always been part of the equation. I really was wanting to know what
> you meant by that and appreciate your answer.
>
> I see the damage every day with male friends. One finally finally began
> the transgender process at 67 after years of pretending through two
> marriages and children. My ex husband suffers psychologically every day
> because he never felt he was tough or mean enough. I could go on. But
> here is the deal. Those are psychological. Women are faced with
> something different - at least in the U.S. Actual discrimination and
> fear of losing health care and just being able to feed their kids. There
> are more women in poverty in the U.S. than men. That poverty is usually
> women with children and the elderly. Their food stamps, housing and
> whatever are challenged every fucking year in a congress made up of a
> huge majority of white men. The psychological stuff needs to be
> addressed for men as well as women. But the U.S. isn't like other
> western countries like Canada. Women actually are under attack right now
> in a way that is more than psychological.
>

Yeah, no. Women are not being systemically attacked in the US or in any
Western culture today. Now in the case of women in traditional
cultures, (like in greater Arabia today) there you might find some
actual examples.

[awaken21]

There is however a historical bias that still leaks into our governing policies and is reflected by attitudes of old white men on a consistent basis. It's not ok to beat women in the US, but pay them less that's covered by law. And just the whole general tone towards women is less than supportive at moments

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/gop-candidate-kasich-belittles-young-woman-at-qa-i-dont-have-any-taylor-swift-tickets/

or

http://bit.ly/1LFyKRW