Pay gap lies just go on and on
Viking
their number one concern: the pay gap. The pay gap was of more concern
to them than death.
And of course, it's a fiction--as has been proved over and over, the
pay gap is the result of females' choices--to work part time, less
hours, not relocate, have less on-topic education, work less hard, be
less willing to work overtime, and so on.
Yet the lie persists that the pay gap is between men and females "with
the same education, same experience, etc..." In Oregon, restaurants
are dropping prices 23%--for females only, for a day:
Restaurants to drop prices for women to reflect wage disparity
http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8OL74R82.html
The AAAW perpetuates the lie this way in the article:
"The event sponsor, the American Association of American Women, says
23 percent of the year will have passed, and that that's how many
extra days women would have to work this year to make what similarly
trained and educated men would make."
I once spoke to the actual female responsible for the government's
$.76 number and asked her point-blank why they didn't make it clear to
the public that it's simply a measure of how much men earn vs females,
not a comparison of equal work, equal experience, and so on. She
smirked and said that's not her business. She was only too obviously
interested in perpetuating the lie.
Some progess is being made. Witness today's article in Fox News, which
is only too ready to swallow all feminist propaganda and parrot it;
this study is from feminists, but it also says that about 3/4 of the
pay gap is from females' choices:
Pay Gap Between Sexes Begins 1 Year After College and Keeps Growing
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267764,00.html
So some progress is being made. Presumably, the pay gap will be out of
the news by early 2065.
Then we can start talking about what it really is: a measure of how
lazy females are compared to me.
Viking
Then we can start talking about what it really is: a measure of how
lazy females are compared to me[n].
Of course, they're lazy compared to me as well. I rather liked that
typo.
Dustbin
> In a study of thousands of females a few years ago, USA Today listed
> their number one concern: the pay gap. The pay gap was of more concern
> to them than death.
Five days between posts....
D.
Peter J Ross
wrote in soc.men.moderated:
"The following are prohibited and could lead to having such prohibited
posts rejected by the moderator and/or banning of the poster:
<...>
* Gender-based, race-based, or sexual-orientation-based bashing of
groups and/or individuals."
-- SMM charter
--
PJR :-)
Mark Borgerson
says...
Of course, Viking COULD be the most industrious person on earth---which
would mean that EVERYONE is lazy compared to him! ;-)
Perhaps you missed the long thread where I explained that I don't
qualify statements as bashing unless they have an actual or implied
threatening element. I find nothing at all threatening in Viking
saying that women work less hard than him. I hope they enjoy
the extra leisure time! ;-)
Mark Borgerson
Dustbin
Does this mean that it is OK to say that women
are LYING psychopaths as long as we don't
suggest kicking the living shit out of them for it?
D.
>
>
> Mark Borgerson
Peter J Ross
Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnf2v3c...@pjr.gotdns.org>, p...@example.invalid
> says...
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:38:14 -0400, Viking <no...@goodgoodbye.com>
>> wrote in soc.men.moderated:
>>
>> > Make that:
>> >
>> > Then we can start talking about what it really is: a measure of how
>> > lazy females are compared to me[n].
>> >
>> > Of course, they're lazy compared to me as well. I rather liked that
>> > typo.
>>
>> "The following are prohibited and could lead to having such prohibited
>> posts rejected by the moderator and/or banning of the poster:
>>
>> <...>
>>
>> * Gender-based, race-based, or sexual-orientation-based bashing of
>> groups and/or individuals."
>>
>> -- SMM charter
>
> Of course, Viking COULD be the most industrious person on earth---which
> would mean that EVERYONE is lazy compared to him! ;-)
Viking certainly posts here more than I do.
> Perhaps you missed the long thread where I explained that I don't
> qualify statements as bashing unless they have an actual or implied
> threatening element. I find nothing at all threatening in Viking
> saying that women work less hard than him. I hope they enjoy
> the extra leisure time! ;-)
Moderators have the power to depart from the charter, so you're
entitled, /qua/ moderator, to do as you please.
So if somebody wrote "Then we can start talking about what it really
is: a measure of how lazy blacks are compared to whites", that would
presumably be OK with you, since gender-bashing and race-bashing are
on an equal footing in the charter, and the comment I've constructed
doesn't contain any threat?
--
PJR :-)
Dustbin
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:38:14 -0400, Viking <no...@goodgoodbye.com>
> wrote in soc.men.moderated:
>
>> Make that:
>>
>> Then we can start talking about what it really is: a measure of how
>> lazy females are compared to me[n].
>>
>> Of course, they're lazy compared to me as well. I rather liked that
>> typo.
>
> "The following are prohibited and could lead to having such prohibited
> posts rejected by the moderator and/or banning of the poster:
So telling the truth is contrary to the SMM
charter is it?
D.
Viking
<mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Of course, Viking COULD be the most industrious person on earth---which
>would mean that EVERYONE is lazy compared to him! ;-)
Thanks, Mark. I would respond further, but I'm doing 29 things at
once.
>Perhaps you missed the long thread where I explained that I don't
>qualify statements as bashing unless they have an actual or implied
>threatening element. I find nothing at all threatening in Viking
>saying that women work less hard than him. I hope they enjoy
>the extra leisure time! ;-)
My comments were obviously meant humorously, to fix a funny typo:
something that PJR did not seem to understand.
I'm glad you adopted your stance vis-a-vis bashing because rightly or
wrongly, smm is viewed by too many people as censoring, and hence so
very few posts. That has to change so that reasonable and constructive
debate can take place.
By the way, thanks for staying on as moderator for a while--no luck in
turning up new moderators?
Viking
PLONK
Peter J Ross
<dustbin...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Does this mean that it is OK to say that women
> are LYING psychopaths as long as we don't
> suggest kicking the living shit out of them for it?
Yes, presumably. And the same applies to similar comments about black
people, if you happen to be white.
--
PJR :-)
Viking
<dustbin...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Does this mean that it is OK to say that women
>are LYING psychopaths as long as we don't
>suggest kicking the living shit out of them for it?
D: don't shut everything down here just as things are starting to
loosen up. We need a looser group if we're ever going to get people to
post here. COmments like that will only clamp things down again.
Peter J Ross
<no...@goodgoodbye.com> wrote:
> My comments were obviously meant humorously, to fix a funny typo:
> something that PJR did not seem to understand.
Would racist humour also be acceptable?
> I'm glad you adopted your stance vis-a-vis bashing because rightly or
> wrongly, smm is viewed by too many people as censoring, and hence so
> very few posts. That has to change so that reasonable and constructive
> debate can take place.
One of the reasons SMM was created was that new posters would possibly
be discouraged from posting to soc.men because of the relentless
bashing of various kinds that is common there. Permitting bashing in
SMM seems to me to contrary to the original hopes for the group.
> By the way, thanks for staying on as moderator for a while--no luck in
> turning up new moderators?
It's possible that a request for moderators in news.admin.moderation
might find somebody. If Mark wants such a request to be posted but
doesn't have the time, I'll be happy to post one.
--
PJR :-)
Dustbin
That was precisely my point: that I expressed
things very plainly and it still passed the
moderator. It should have done; I said nothing
wrong, I only used rather blunt language to say
it. One of my complaints on this ng has been
that telling the truth could be interpreted as
gender-biased. The problem is that it is not
gender-biased; it is the state that our
societies have got into that is so biased that
telling the truth about females can look like
woman-bashing. Is that any surprise when the
feminists have been bashing us for thirty years ;-)
In fact, in the UK it would be illegal to put on
a news group any statement that threatened any
person or identifiable group of person(s); or
any statement that encouraged others to carry
out illegal activity including the execution of
any such threat.
D.
Brian Mailman
Plonking Peter is ill-advised since you-all don't have that many unique
posters in this group to begin with. Plonking him means that's one less
source for interactions, and one less source of messages.
Of course, such a thing makes life easier for the moderator, since it's
far easier to process fewer messages than more.
B/
Viking
<bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>> PLONK
>
>Plonking Peter is ill-advised since you-all don't have that many unique
>posters in this group to begin with.
He is, in my opinion, a negative influence. That's what plonking was
invented for.
Peter J Ross
<bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
Blimey! It's Friday and this post has only just appeared. We really do
need more moderators; at present (through no fault of Mark's) we might
as well be using pigeon post.
> Viking wrote:
>
>> PLONK
>
> Plonking Peter is ill-advised since you-all don't have that many unique
> posters in this group to begin with.
I'm also interesting, charming, helpful and generally too much fun to
be plonked by anybody! ;-)
> Plonking him means that's one less
> source for interactions, and one less source of messages.
I don't agree: everybody is entitled to use a killfile, and the other
six readers of this group can still see my posts if they want to.
> Of course, such a thing makes life easier for the moderator, since it's
> far easier to process fewer messages than more.
However, there's also the issue of boredom. Checking a few times a day
for new articles in the queue and finding none wouldn't be much fun.
--
PJR :-)
saur
> Blimey! It's Friday and this post has only just appeared. We really do
> need more moderators; at present (through no fault of Mark's) we might
> as well be using pigeon post.
APN/Supernews must not be getting all of the articles. Doesn't seem like
there's any need for more than one moderator based on group volume. It also
doesn't appear as if there are any real conversations that would require a
timely response from a moderator.
Brian Mailman
> In soc.men.moderated on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:17:17 -0700, Brian
> Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>> Viking wrote:
>>
>>> PLONK
>>
>> Plonking Peter is ill-advised since you-all don't have that many
>> unique posters in this group to begin with.
>
> I'm also interesting, charming, helpful and generally too much fun to
> be plonked by anybody! ;-)
>
>> Plonking him means that's one less source for interactions, and one
>> less source of messages.
>
> I don't agree: everybody is entitled to use a killfile, and the other
> six readers of this group can still see my posts if they want to.
>
I didn't say he wasnt entitled to use a killfile.
I'm saying that when "everybody" is such few bodies, it's not advisable.
>> Of course, such a thing makes life easier for the moderator, since
>> it's far easier to process fewer messages than more.
>
> However, there's also the issue of boredom. Checking a few times a
> day for new articles in the queue and finding none wouldn't be much
> fun.
There's always the spam to the submission address to read. Plenty of
that. Probably more spam than there are submissions.
B/
Mark Borgerson
says...
at a denial-of-service attack---not that there's been a lot of traffic
here to interfere with!
Mark Borgerson
Viking
<bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>Peter J Ross wrote:
>> In soc.men.moderated on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:17:17 -0700, Brian
>>> Plonking Peter is ill-advised since you-all don't have that many
>>> unique posters in this group to begin with.
>>
>> I'm also interesting, charming, helpful and generally too much fun to
>> be plonked by anybody! ;-)
Well, that appears to be incorrect, since I've plonked you, Ross, and
there you stay.
Raving
> In article <133s84dss292...@news.supernews.com>, bmail...@sfo.invalid
> says...
>
> > Peter J Ross wrote:
> > > In soc.men.moderated on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:17:17 -0700, Brian
> > >> Viking wrote:
>
> > >>> PLONK
>
> > >> Plonking Peter is ill-advised since you-all don't have that many
> > >> unique posters in this group to begin with.
>
> > > I'm also interesting, charming, helpful and generally too much fun to
> > > be plonked by anybody! ;-)
>
> > >> Plonking him means that's one less source for interactions, and one
> > >> less source of messages.
>
> > > I don't agree: everybody is entitled to use a killfile, and the other
> > > six readers of this group can still see my posts if they want to.
>
> > I didn't say he wasnt entitled to use a killfile.
>
> > I'm saying that when "everybody" is such few bodies, it's not advisable.
>
> > >> Of course, such a thing makes life easier for the moderator, since
> > >> it's far easier to process fewer messages than more.
>
> > > However, there's also the issue of boredom. Checking a few times a
> > > day for new articles in the queue and finding none wouldn't be much
> > > fun.
>
> > There's always the spam to the submission address to read. Plenty of
> > that. Probably more spam than there are submissions.
>
> LOL! by about 1000:1. It's either spambots gone wild or an attempt
> at a denial-of-service attack---not that there's been a lot of traffic
> here to interfere with!
>
> Mark Borgerson
OMG, 6,000 cancelled spam posts. ...
Wow! My Gmail spam trap only has 703, at the moment.
Very impressive.
( O.K. ... When I get relly, really *bored*, I do admit to picking
over my spam, very occasionally ... )
Go on now, Mark ...
Care to share one or two of the more appetizing spam tidbits in
S&M.M ?
I mean, here is a kinky little nibble of splamb that arrived just
recently ....
( Hmm .. 4 days ago. Still fresh! Yum ... )
"Hello to you
I still live with my parents under the same roof and I am sorry to say
this,
but I am already tired to see how they rule over my life. I work hard
and I
make enough to have a good life, but I give a lot to my parents. My
friends
ask why don't I just rent an apartment and leave: I just think that I
will
be sorry all my life for leaving them: Maybe you can give me an
advice? Is
there a way to get "divorced" with my parents and build my life with a
man
who will love me. ..."
Glad to see the NG is still here.
Hi everyone.
Cordially,
Raving