Could the Women's March Trigger a Global Movement for Rights?

[jim meyer]

I understand that there was no ONE idea that unified all these people, but just a general insecurity that comes from an unknown entity i.e. "the Donald"
Let's be honest, it is not Equal Rights that Groups "fight for" It is the Unequal Rights or the Status of a Protected Cl;ass Designation!
Voltaire was concerned about the Tyranny of the Majority. Perhaps we should be just as concerned about the Tyranny of the Minority (even though they outnumber the men) For me, I am still waiting to experience that White Male Privilege thing.
As Technical or Science types, shouldn't we observe how this experiment progresses and then draw our conclusions instead of prejudging the outcome?
In other words, Give the Guy a Chance to make good on his promises?

If he(POTUS)is as smart as he claims he will embrace the ERA SASP and urge congress to get it enacted. He likes to stir the pot so maybe he will.

 

[russ_watters]

I acknowledged I benefited from all three privileges. I did not work to pick my parents, skin color or gender. How each contributed specifically to my general success, I can't say, but it's not hard to visualize. If I were a poor black female, the chances PF exists become slim.

Where I disagree is that I think because activists fixate on one particular aspect, we'd better be darn sure they are accurately labeling the problem.

I'm sure there are statistics out there that show your parent's economic situation and education are a much better predictor of yours than their race.

Again: as a general principle applying to everything from homework to societal improvement, we have no hope of correctly answering or fixing a problem if we don't understand it correctly.

 

[256bits]

Trump creates psychological breathing space for that kind of behavior toward women by his example. It almost, and should have, cost him the election. That "hot mike" tape was a massive blow to his campaign. A large part of what this march was about was to remind people of his actual attitude toward women. It has fallen out of the news headlines, but not out of women's memories.

So who's worse ( or better ) - the one who is heard to say something like that, of the one who is silent about such thoughts.
Either can act or not act upon. Most people (men I suppose) take the deliberate decision to not act vulgar, at least I would like to think so.
Being around a vulgar person is mentally fatiguing - I wonder why Trump never learned that - and can be disastrous through guilt by association - ask the Billy guy.
Gutter talk occurs for both sexes, and so does trashy behavior, so as a whole neither sex can claim higher moral ground in that regard.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So who's worse ( or better ) - the one who is heard to say something like that, of the one who is silent about such thoughts.
Either can act or not act upon. Most people (men I suppose) take the deliberate decision to not act vulgar, at least I would like to think so.
Being around a vulgar person is mentally fatiguing - I wonder why Trump never learned that - and can be disastrous through guilt by association - ask the Billy guy.
Gutter talk occurs for both sexes, and so does trashy behavior, so as a whole neither sex can claim higher moral ground in that regard.

If you look at the whole quote from Trump you see he is boasting that he actually acts on his urges, that he goes up to attractive women out of the blue and just starts kissing them and touching them in intimate places. The fact he acts on it is what distinguishes it from anyone, man or woman, merely saying "OOOH That's hot! I'd hit that!," without actually acting on it. Merely saying it is probably considered immoral in most religions, but acting on it, you've actually cross the line over into illegal.

edit to include:

4 Years ago San Diego's mayor was forced to resign due to allegations of ( and a "kind of" confession to) behaviors that Trump boasted about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Filner

(Scroll down to "allegations and resignation")

 

[MarneMath]

No, but it is important to have a clear understanding of a "problem" before labeling it a "problem" and proposing action. The commonly cited 79cents (up recently from 78cents) is hammered by activists, the media and some government sources (administration dependent) that a lot of people accept as true something that is basically fake news/a lie. It should be obvious to anyone that pointing out that an engineer makes more money that a teacher (for example) has nothing to do with gender discrimination and everything to do with choices. The point being, since almost all of "the problem" has nothing to do with workplace gender discrimination, the ACTUAL "problem" of women choosing high competition/low pay jobs has an entirely different solution.

I think that's a false narrative. I've read a myriad of studies that have exam pay between gender within the same field and the gap exist. For example, between surgeons one can expect a female to be paid 71 cents for every dollar a male makes. Dr Goldin offers compelling reasons as to why this exist (link below). Nevertheless, perhaps before calling something fake news, you should verify that it's actually fake. http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/goldin/files/goldin_aeapress_2014_1.pdf

http://www.aauw.org/aauw_check/pdf_download/show_pdf.php?file=The-Simple-Truth - light reading

 

[russ_watters]

I think that's a false narrative. I've read a myriad of studies that have exam pay between gender within the same field and the gap exist. For example, between surgeons one can expect a female to be paid 71 cents for every dollar a male makes. Dr Goldin offers compelling reasons as to why this exist (link below). Nevertheless, perhaps before calling something fake news, you should verify that it's actually fake.http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/goldin/files/goldin_aeapress_2014_1.pdf

http://www.aauw.org/aauw_check/pdf_download/show_pdf.php?file=The-Simple-Truth - light reading

That first one is a great study of the issue, but bizarrely, you didn't cite it accurately. It says two key things:

1. The pay gap is much smaller than the overall uncontrolled 77% (at the time) once you control for choices such as field.
2. The pay gap varies with age and is virtually nonexistent for young women/men, controlled for occupation/education.

Both of these are important and in particular the second one indicates that the "problem" has been fixed and the results are still percolating through the population as it ages.

Interestingly, the second report, which has a clear source-with-an-adjenda acknowledges the impact of choice but oddly (or not?) despite all the other stats in the article, doesn't quantify it:

In part, the pay gap reflects women's and men's choices. Women and men choose different college majors and types of jobs after graduation. But women experience pay gaps at every education level and in nearly every line of work. Among the many occupations for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics collects data that allow for valid comparisons, men's earnings are higher than women's in the vast majority.

With all of the other stats in the paper, why not cite the actual stats there? Good reason: if you cite the more relevant/accurate stat, it means you have to stop using the misleading one.

And I'm not seeing your stat for surgeons in either link, but based on the number being lower than the overall uncorrected average, it must be cherry-picked and therefore inaccurate as a measure of the entire issue.

Again, the bottom line is this: a woman graduating from college today can, in nearly all cases, expect to receive the same pay as a comparable male throughout their career. But it is unreasonable for women to continue to demand "equal" pay for less work at lower skill and lower demand jobs.

 

[MarneMath]

A few of points:

1. I didn't cite anything inaccurately. I merely stated that the pay gap exist, which the first article supports. That's dramatically differently than claiming that pay gap exist due to job variance.
2. Smaller than the cited claim wasn't my point. My point is that it exist. Regardless if it's 71% or 80% or 90%, there still a pay gap that exist due to gender.
3. My quoting of the surgeon statistic was merely to illustrated that even among common career that pay gaps do exist, not to emphasis as to what degree they exist.

Nevertheless, I think my comment is enough to discredit your implied claim that the majority of pay gap exist to women having low paying jobs vs men. That's the false narrative I was complaining about.

While I'm citing sources, feel free to do the same. Right now you're simply making unsustained claims.

 

[russ_watters]

A few of points:

1. I didn't cite anything inaccurately. I merely stated that the pay gap exist, which the first article supports. That's dramatically differently than claiming that pay gap exist due to job variance.
2. Smaller than the cited claim wasn't my point. My point is that it exist. Regardless if it's 71% or 80% or 90%, there still a pay gap that exist due to gender.
3. My quoting of the surgeon statistic was merely to illustrated that even among common career that pay gaps do exist, not to emphasis as to what degree they exist.

Nevertheless, I think my comment is enough to discredit your implied claim that the majority of pay gap exist to women having low paying jobs vs men. That's the false narrative I was complaining about.

While I'm citing sources, feel free to do the same. Right now you're simply making unsustained claims.

Your first source is just fine for this discussion, and here is my point, which you apparently do agree with, despite arguing vehemently around it: the 77%-79% pay gap is a very misleading statistic because it does not control for life choices. Right?

I mean, I do agree that once all lifestyle choices are factored-in, there is still a non-zero gap, but if that gap isn't 77-79%, then the claimed "problem" is much different (smaller and/or has a different cause) than what is typically implied. And again, I think it is important to deal with the real numbers, not intentionally misleading ones.

And again, if the goal here is trying to solve the real problem, these two problems have different solutions, right?
1. A gender-pay gap of 77-79% exists primarily because women are discriminated against.
2. A gender-pay gap of 77-79% exists primarily because women choose lower paying fields than men.

Indeed, only one of these problems can be motivation for a protest: the other is a problem women largely have to fix themselves. One of these implies government intervention is needed (the ERA?) and the other not. Right?

And just so we're clear, the word "primarily" means "more than half".

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'm sure there are statistics out there that show your parent's economic situation and education are a much better predictor of yours than their race.

Yes agreed, but it all comes back to race and gender in the end. There are reasons the black community are poorer and less educated. It began with slavery and morphed over time. Women being in a similar situation but to a less degree which is why women of color are in a tough spot.

 

[MarneMath]

1. I'll go back to my main point. I haven't argued nor stated anything in respect of the statistics claimed by other groups or whatever. I'm merely commenting that you implied a false narrative that the pay gap exist mostly due difference in jobs. My main and only point is that the pay gap exist within occupations. I'm not really arguing anything else besides that. I don't particularly care if it's 70 80 or 90, the fact of the matter it exist.

2. I haven't argued one way or another if it's a problem that hasn't been solved or should be solved. While I agree those are two different problems, that doesn't imply the solution cannot be the same. My grass keeps dying and my tree might crash into my house. Turns out if I remove the tree, I remove the threat and now my grass has more access to light. I imagine the same effect may be true here.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes agreed, but it all comes back to race and gender in the end. There are reasons the black community are poorer and less educated. It began with slavery and morphed over time. Women being in a similar situation but to a less degree which is why women of color are in a tough spot.

50 years ago, we wouldn't have needed a history lesson to find "white priveledge" (and we would have just called it "black discrimination"). 50 years ago, people were actually discriminated against based on the color of their skin, as a matter of law. It didn't matter if you were a doctor or lawyer or you just immigrated and had no slaves in your lineage, if you were black; you sat in the back of the bus and your kids went to a different school because of the color of their skin. That's a difference that matters in terms of what "white priveledge" means and what should be done about the problem of poor economic outlooks for blacks. Focusing on past discrimination (assuming I believed that was the typical definition of the term, which I don't) doesn't provide a basis for a solution moving forward. In fact, it steers us in the wrong direction by focusing on the wrong problem.*

At some point, people have to take responsibility for their own successes and failures based on their own choices.

*For example, if the main problem is race, then prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race is a solution. If the problem is the economic status of your parents, then the solution might instead be need-based college financial aid.

 

[russ_watters]

1. I'll go back to my main point. I haven't argued nor stated anything in respect of the statistics claimed by other groups or whatever. I'm merely commenting that you implied a false narrative that the pay gap exist mostly due difference in jobs.

Well, then we do disagree. Because the "pay gap" *is* mostly due to differences in jobs and other life choices (and even more to the point moving forward, to age). And your own source indicates that.

Further, whatever the number is, I am very against false/misleading facts in general. 78% is trotted out because it is a big enough gap to get people to think it matters and is due to discrimination. Even if the narrative wasn't false, it would still be wrong to use an intentionally misleading number to suport a narrative.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

50 years ago, people were actually discriminated against based on the color of their skin, as a matter of law. It didn't matter if you were a doctor or lawyer or you just immigrated and had no slaves in your lineage, if you were black; you sat in the back of the bus and your kids went to a different school because of the color of their skin. That's a difference that matters in terms of what "white priveledge" means and what should be done about the problem of poor economic outlooks for blacks.

Racism did not end with slavery, did not end with the 60s movement and hasn't ended now. The laws just become more clever and sophisticated.

Focusing on past discrimination (assuming I believed that was the typical definition of the term, which I don't) doesn't provide a basis for a solution moving forward.

Yes it does because you must understand how the black community got to where it is. The black community is not genetically more prone to commit crimes, live in public housing and join gangs.

At some point, people have to take responsibility for their own successes and failures based on their own choices.

Yes and you will say this till the day you die and nothing will improve. No one is saying people should not be held accountable, but we must understand how the media, policies and private industries have had and continue to have a big role in how black communities evolve.

I am certainly no social science expert, but through my experience volunteering in these communities for years, reading books like "The New Jim Crow" and watching documentaries like "13th" (free on netflix), my eyes are opening.

 

[gvlr96]

The part of your post I quoted questions what occasion there could be for a specific protest against men's aggression toward women, and I'm pointing out that such an occasion exists with Trump's behavior toward women. I do think I addressed your point.

I'm not sure what you're trying to convey by saying Trump is not a government department. He is the head of the executive branch.

I'm glad to hear you don't approve. What you're missing, it seems to me, is that giving him the keys to the White House after he said those things amounts to saying it's an unimportant issue.

The fact that he said it is irrelevant. The fact that he did it is concerning, but nobody is going to see an orange man child as an inspiration and want to follow suit because of him. It's an issue if his attitude affects his policies. There is no evidence that it will.

 

[russ_watters]

Racism did not end with slavery, did not end with the 60s movement and hasn't ended now. The laws just become more clever and sophisticated.

Racist laws? I guess that's where we'll have to break the discussion and agree to disagree, because from where I sit, the pendulum has swung in the other direction and the racist laws on the books lean pro minority/anti-white (affirmative action).

Yes it does because you must understand how the black community got to where it is. The black community is not genetically more prone to commit crimes, live in public housing and join gangs.

Same answer as above: if racist laws are causing those things, fine - agree to disagree that such an animal exists. But a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty and crime is a self-contained issue even if it started with a push from history. I guess what I would want to know here is: what solution does the history lead you to propose for this problem?

Yes and you will say this till the day you die and nothing will improve.

The difference here - and it is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives - is that *I'm* not the one who needs to be saying that: if an inner-city black single mom says it, her kids' situation will improve, and that is what matters most in a free/democratic society.

And the other side of the coin is just as valid: no amount of blaming society "until the day they die" for problems that are in their power to fix is going to fix the problem.

 

[russ_watters]

Adding to this:

Well, then we do disagree. Because the "pay gap" *is* mostly due to differences in jobs and other life choices (and even more to the point moving forward, to age). And your own source indicates that.

MM, the article you cited is titled "A Grand Gender Convergence: Its Last Chapter", indicating that the "gender wage gap" is all but closed (is in its last chapter), and its thesis is that the major remaining piece of the puzzle is reward for hours worked. It explicitly says that the 78% is mostly not due to discrimination, but lifestyle choices, combined with economics. Indeed, the thesis of the article is that what is left of the pay gap after the other lifestyle choices are taken out is that people who work longer hours - primarily men - are rewarded for it:

The gender gap in pay would be considerably reduced and might vanish altogether if firms did not have an incentive to disproprtionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours.

In any case, it is difficult for me to put an exact number on the issue both because many articles gloss over it and the exact number depends on the thrust of the question. In particular, it varies a lot with age -- as one would expect, since you can't retroactively fix a person's earning's history. In other words, the problem is less moving forward than it looks when looking backwards.

In any case, when properly controlled, the numbers tend to fall into the 90%+ range:

However, multiple studies from OECD, AAUW, and the US Department of Labor have found that pay rates between males and females varied by 5–6.6% or, females earning 94 cents to every dollar earned by their male counterparts, when wages were adjusted to different individual choices made by male and female workers in college major, occupation, working hours, and maternal/paternal leave.[7] The remaining 6% of the gap has been speculated to originate from deficiency in salary negotiating skills and sexual discrimination.[7][8][9][10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

On the conservative end, that's 70% of the 22% gap can be explained by life choices alone.

So again: why put "78%!" on a sign when the more accurate number might be "95%!" Simply put: it's a lot easier to sell that it's a problem when you use a wider gap, even if the number is wildly misleading at best.

The disparity gets even smaller if the question asked is: how much will discrimination in the workplace affect my daughter via the gender pay gap? The answer to that question is simplest put: not at all. Thus the answer to the related question: do women need a an ERA or gender-wage laws? No.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Racist laws? I guess that's where we'll have to break the discussion and agree to disagree, because from where I sit, the pendulum has swung in the other direction and the racist laws on the books lean pro minority/anti-white (affirmative action).

War on drugs, three strikes, privatization of prisons, housing segregation to name a few.

But a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty and crime is a self-contained issue even if it started with a puch from history. I guess what I would want to know here is: what solution does the history lead you to propose for this problem?

What do you mean "self-contained"? History doesn't lend a solution, but it's the start to a solution.

The difference here - and it is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives - is that *I'm* not the one who needs to be saying that: if an inner-city black single mom says it, her kids' situation will improve, and that is what matters most in a free/democratic society.

Yes that is the simple "buck up" personal responsibility message and those that adhere to that clearly don't spend any time in inner cities. The inner cities are a different world. One that you can't understand unless you step inside it. I would encourage anyone who thinks that all a single black mom needs to do is to tell their kid to "behave" to volunteer in these areas. There are a lot of bad parents, yes, but they are victims themselves. But there are also great and inspiring inner city parents out there and still they're kids fall victim to a bullet or a gang or easy drugs because their world is different. Some have to work 3 jobs to get by. Now exactly how much mentoring can you do with your kid when you are working 3 jobs?

I understand I sound like a bleeding heart and there is plenty blame to go around and I am all for holding people accountable, but we really must walk into that world to understand it and how it came to be. I don't have any solution, thousands of smarter people than I work on that every day, but what I do know is that the public in general needs to educate themselves in black history and how various social and government structures have worked again them.

 

[russ_watters]

War on drugs, three strikes, privatization of prisons, housing segregation to name a few.

Fair enough; agree to disagree, but I might buy that book to try to understand your point better.

What do you mean "self-contained"?

I mean that once the cycle starts, it feeds itself regardless of what caused it: Poverty causes poverty. Blacks are not the only ones in the country with a high poverty rate and a cyclic poverty problem (which was my point in separating poverty from racism). For example, Appalacia:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/countryboys/readings/duncan.html

Sometimes the trigger for a small town is something as simple as a factory closing. But once it starts, the cycle is tough to break.

History doesn't lend a solution, but it's the start to a solution.

Ok...that doesn't really answer the question, but I surmise from this and the previous that since you believe that racism is still legislated that undoing the legislation is the start of the solution. Unfortunately, that isn't mutually exclusive to my idea that once started the cycle continues on its own until someone or something breaks it. E.G., softening crime laws might get people out of jail, but it won't cause more kids to graduate from high school and incomes to rise. It doesn't directly address the problem, so it doesn't provide a solution.

Yes that is the simple "buck up" personal responsibility message and those that adhere to that clearly don't spend any time in inner cities. The inner cities are a different world. One that you can't understand unless you step inside it. I would encourage anyone who thinks that all a single black mom needs to do is to tell their kid to "behave" to volunteer in these areas. There are a lot of bad parents, yes, but they are victims themselves. But there are also great and inspiring inner city parents out there and still they're kids fall victim to a bullet or a gang or easy drugs because their world is different. Some have to work 3 jobs to get by. Now exactly how much mentoring can you do with your kid when you are working 3 jobs?

I haven't done work in inner cities myself, no. My knowledge of the anecdotes comes mostly second-hand, from teachers who have their souls crushed in inner cities by jaw-droppingly bad parenting.

It's worth noting that you started your anecdote with "single black mom". In my view, that's a situation that has already failed, but the BLM movement doesn't agree.

And it my experience also includes experience with the poverty cycle for white people; from parents who actively discouraged their kids from going to college so they could get menial jobs and help pay rent (despite a mom who never held a real job in her life).

The most direct experience is with my mom's side of her family, which was relatively poor, and seeing who escaped that and why.

I understand I sound like a bleeding heart and there is plenty blame to go around and I am all for holding people accountable, but we really must walk into that world to understand it and how it came to be. I don't have any solution...

No, the bleeding heart thing doesn't bother me because it means you care. What I don't like about the worldview is that it focuses on blame more than solutions, IMO. On the other side, maybe you see personal responsibility as a cop-out to avoid blame and empathy, but I see it as the founding principle of the US and the only solution proven to work. And the beauty of it is that it's easy and free.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Fair enough; agree to disagree, but I might buy that book to try to understand your point better.

I think it's a must read and would absolutely be willing to ship my copy to you. PM me if interested. I would love to hear your thoughts.

I mean that once the cycle starts, it feeds itself regardless of what caused it: Poverty causes poverty. Blacks are not the only ones in the country with a high poverty rate and a cyclic poverty problem (which was my point in separating poverty from racism). For example, Appalacia:

I agree, that is generational poverty and requires some luck or herculean strength to overcome. It is not unique to blacks, but the causes are different and so it should be treated differently.

It doesn't directly address the problem, so it doesn't provide a solution.

Creating "just" laws are a good and necessary start to stop the bleeding. There is no quick fix. It will take many generations even if solutions are figured out.

My knowledge of the anecdotes comes mostly second-hand, from teachers who have their souls crushed in inner cities by jaw-droppingly bad parenting.

No doubt! My wife has inner city teaching experience and it is indeed soul crushing. Another way inner cities are getting screwed is from charter schools. Charter schools get public funding and little oversight. They get to pick which students they want. That leaves all the trouble kids to fend for themselves in the public school. Well no kidding the public school will struggle when they get cherry picked and are now full of trouble makers. Also the school my wife worked at had a yearly audit. Turns out to meet requirements the janitor posed as one of the teachers because he was technically more qualified. I mean, what, the hell, right?

What I don't like about the worldview is that it focuses on blame more than solutions, IMO.

Blame by itself is not helpful, but understanding causes and effect fully is vital.

What I don't like about the worldview is that it focuses on blame more than solutions, IMO. On the other side, maybe you see personal responsibility as a cop-out to avoid blame and empathy, but I see it as the founding principle of the US and the only solution proven to work. And the beauty of it is that it's easy and free.

A lot of people reject any kind of examination beyond personal responsibility and proclaim "white guilt!". This hamstrings understanding and is an unfortunate defense mechanism. Truth be told this is a really really complex issue and all parts of life are involved. Personal responsibility works when there is a level playing field. Yes life is not fair, but minorities have been specially targeted throughout their history. In the documentary "13th" there is even sound recording of two different presidential advisors who admitted laws were passed to negatively affect minorities.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The fact that he said it is irrelevant.

It's very relevant. It adds to his overall crude image. The world leader he most resembles right now in terms of the way he presents himself is third world dictator, Rodrigo Duterte. People around the world are either aghast or laughing at us since he got elected just based on the outrageous way he presents himself.

The fact that he did it is concerning, but nobody is going to see an orange man child as an inspiration and want to follow suit because of him.

I guess you never saw any footage of a Trump rally. There are literally millions of people in the US who consider him a hero.

It's an issue if his attitude affects his policies. There is no evidence that it will.

His attitude toward women is what is going to allow him to concede all kinds of power to that faction of Republicans who are super-religious when it comes to Planned Parenthood and such. Kasich and Pence, for example.

 

[fahraynk]

It's very relevant. It adds to his overall crude image. The world leader he most resembles right now in terms of the way he presents himself is third world dictator, Rodrigo Duterte. People around the world are either aghast or laughing at us since he got elected just based on the outrageous way he presents himself.

I guess you never saw any footage of a Trump rally. There are literally millions of people in the US who consider him a hero.

His attitude toward women is what is going to allow him to concede all kinds of power to that faction of Republicans who are super-religious when it comes to Planned Parenthood and such. Kasich and Pence, for example.

When it comes to planned parenthood, I am pro choice... but I don't think its moral to force people who think abortion is immoral to pay for it ala taxes...
Also not moral to force me to pay for an abortion for a girl I am not hooking up with...
All he can do is cut federal funding to abortion. He can't overturn Roe v Wade without at least 2 more judges other then the one he is appointing.

Also why not make the distinction between A) his attitude on women and B) his attitude on women who are attacking him politically in the media.
I think they are very different.

 

[zoobyshoe]

When it comes to planned parenthood, I am pro choice... but I don't think its moral to force people who think abortion is immoral to pay for it ala taxes...

This same thinking applies to everything taxes pay for and variations of your objection have been raised many times in the past. Each person has some objection to some percentage of the things their tax money covers. You most often hear this argument raised in conjunction with war; some people don't want their taxes spent on killing people. Then you hear it raised with regard to welfare; some people don't want their taxes spent on "freeloaders." Pick a place where the government spends money and there's someone who objects to it being spent there.

I'm not sure if it's feasible to alter the tax system such that people could designate where they want their tax money to go. The IRS bureaucracy is already unwieldy.

Also why not make the distinction between A) his attitude on women and B) his attitude on women who are attacking him politically in the media.
I think they are very different.

No point. His objectionable attitude toward women came out loud and clear in a tape made years ago and was firmly in place before he ever ran for president. That is what is being protested.

 

[fahraynk]

This same thinking applies to everything taxes pay for and variations of your objection have been raised many times in the past. Each person has some objection to some percentage of the things their tax money covers. You most often hear this argument raised in conjunction with war; some people don't want their taxes spent on killing people. Then you hear it raised with regard to welfare; some people don't want their taxes spent on "freeloaders." Pick a place where the government spends money and there's someone who objects to it being spent there.

I'm not sure if it's feasible to alter the tax system such that people could designate where they want their tax money to go. The IRS bureaucracy is already unwieldy.No point. His objectionable attitude toward women came out loud and clear in a tape made years ago and was firmly in place before he ever ran for president. That is what is being protested.

So, you are right that welfare is in the same category. It is basically forced charity. However I would point out that half the country is not against welfare. In the case of abortion, you are forcing half of the people to take part in what they think is murder. In the case of welfare... it could easily be argued in a long forum thread that welfare might be a net detriment to society... but its another issue. Anyway its still forced charity.

War is not in this category for obvious reasons. Not charity, necessary for defense. Obvious.

And in regards to Trumps comment "proving" his attitude toward all women...
Tell me, do you honestly believe there are NOT a million women who would love a billionaire to grab them? Because that being the case...the worse you could say about him is that he is too honest!

 

[jedishrfu]

BBC just published an anniversary article on the Women's Strike in Iceland forty years ago:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34602822

Imagine if that happened here.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So, you are right that welfare is in the same category. It is basically forced charity.

All taxes are forced. Pick anything taxes are being spent on and you'll be able to find someone who feels they are being forced to pay for something against their will.

In the case of abortion, you are forcing half of the people to take part in what they think is murder...

...War is not in this category for obvious reasons. Not charity, necessary for defense. Obvious.

Somehow you missed all the objections that have been raised over wars that were not seen as defensive, especially Viet Nam, and more recently, Gulf War #2 which failed to uncover the alleged weapons of mass destruction it was intended to prevent being implemented. A large percentage of US citizens felt they had been forced to fund the purposeless killing. There are ongoing objections to covert CIA operations that are being paid for by taxes. People aren't given a choice where their tax dollars are spent. You can vote for the candidate you think will spend your taxes the most wisely, but if that person doesn't win, it's game over for two, four, six, or eight years. Even if your candidate does win, you might be surprised to find them putting your tax dollars into something you didn't anticipate they would, and which you find objectionable.

And in regards to Trumps comment "proving" his attitude toward all women...

Why is "proving" in quotes here?

Tell me, do you honestly believe there are NOT a million women who would love a billionaire to grab them? Because that being the case...the worse you could say about him is that he is too honest!

Between hookers, who would let him grab them in exchange for an agreed upon fee, and those who would feel honored, like this woman:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CusJ0VWWYAAnWUS.jpg:small

there may in fact be a million woman who would love it. So what? How many more women are there who react like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-women-sick_us_5804d6ece4b0e8c198a8fb66

Just the act of writing down the misogynistic words of Trump and his defenders, over and over, has taken a toll on my body. It’s been difficult to sleep, to eat, to focus on work. My stomach is still upset, my chest still tight. Clothes that fit me a month ago are hanging off me.

In writing this, I’m not asking for sympathy. I decided to share my story because I suspected that many women feel the same way. And when I put the question out on social media, dozens of rape and sexual assault survivors responded with similar tales of feeling triggered by Trump. This election is literally making women sick. It’s such a common phenomenon, in fact, that the DC Psychological Association is planning to hold support groups for women who are experiencing symptoms of anxiety from this political climate.

“We’ve seen a lot of emotional distress because of the stuff going on with the election,” said Dr. Stephen Stein, president of the DCPA. “Certainly with women whohad been traumatized before, or had been assaulted or raped or molested, there’s something very unique in this experience that’s enormously painful and scary for a lot of people.”

 

[fahraynk]

All taxes are forced. Pick anything taxes are being spent on and you'll be able to find someone who feels they are being forced to pay for something against their will.

Somehow you missed all the objections that have been raised over wars that were not seen as defensive, especially Viet Nam, and more recently, Gulf War #2 which failed to uncover the alleged weapons of mass destruction it was intended to prevent being implemented. A large percentage of US citizens felt they had been forced to fund the purposeless killing. There are ongoing objections to covert CIA operations that are being paid for by taxes. People aren't given a choice where their tax dollars are spent. You can vote for the candidate you think will spend your taxes the most wisely, but if that person doesn't win, it's game over for two, four, six, or eight years. Even if your candidate does win, you might be surprised to find them putting your tax dollars into something you didn't anticipate they would, and which you find objectionable.Why is "proving" in quotes here?

Between hookers, who would let him grab them in exchange for an agreed upon fee, and trailer trash types who would feel honored, like this woman:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CusJ0VWWYAAnWUS.jpg:small

there may in fact be a million woman who would love it. So what? How many more women are there who react like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-women-sick_us_5804d6ece4b0e8c198a8fb66

Proving is in quotes because the way you matter o factly stated he has a bad opinion of women. He stated the truth, from what he sees. He sees a bunch of money hungry women around him constantly who probably want to marry him ect. He was being honest. You say : No point. His objectionable attitude toward women came out loud and clear in a tape made years ago and was firmly in place before he ever ran for president. That is what is being protested.
See "loud and clear" and "firmly in place". You are taking it as like... "proof" that he hates women or something. I mean, his campaign manager is a women. Probably the first women campaign manager of a wining president. He has a daughter. Hes just being honest. You saying that oh all of these women at huffington post don't like this behavior... this says nothing about the many women hovering around a billionaire that do like it. This does not mean Trump was not telling the truth about women who he has encountered. How can him accurately describing many women around him be him having a bad attitude...

So you are again trying to lump all taxes into the same category as abortion... its childish. We pay for roads because we all need and use them. We all need police and firemen. We don't all need abortions. We don't all need welfare. They are completely different categories. If you can't admit that then you are a lost cause. Name another tax that has 50% of the population thinking its immoral. You can't. I am saying that it is a forced charity.
If all these feminists want abortions to be free then why can't they all donate to an abortion charity? Why do you have to force people who don't approve of it to pay for it? If its because the feminists won't give enough... then they must not really believe its that important!

As far as wars, you want to pretend that is the same thing as paying for police and firemen... wars may be debatable... but at some point debates have to stop and we have to take action. Maybe we made the wrong choice, but we have to make a choice sometimes. Deal with it. It is not comparable with abortion. We all need to be safe from enemies. I can take personal responsibility and wear a condom. I can't take personal responsibility and stop a terrorist plot overseas. The fact that I have to explain it...

 

[Astronuc]

So you are again trying to lump all taxes into the same category as abortion health care... its childish. We pay for roads because we all need and use them. We all need police and firemen.

and health care. It's not so much about feminism, as it is about economics.

From http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/ (2011)

Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion. The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law.

So, no abortions are not funded by federal taxes.

From - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...parenthood-actually-uses-its-federal-funding/

it's important to note that federal dollars are not used to provide the service at the center of the political debate around Planned Parenthood: abortions. That's been banned by law in almost all cases since 1976. (The details of the ban have shifted over time.) Instead, the organization uses money from other sources — private donors and foundations as well as fees — to fund its abortion services.

As for the wars, we do need to protect ourselves. Perhaps it would help to not make enemies in the first place. Furthermore, we don't need to be spending $billions$ for over-priced contractors like KBR or Blackwater, renamed as XE Services in 2009, and now known as Academi since 2011.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_in_post-invasion_Iraq#Corruption
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/much-of...cial-auditors-final-report-to-congress-shows/

 

[zoobyshoe]

Proving is in quotes because the way you matter o factly stated he has a bad opinion of women.

Quotation marks are for when you are quoting someone verbatim.

He stated the truth, from what he sees. He sees a bunch of money hungry women around him constantly who probably want to marry him ect. He was being honest. You say : No point. His objectionable attitude toward women came out loud and clear in a tape made years ago and was firmly in place before he ever ran for president. That is what is being protested.
See "loud and clear" and "firmly in place". You are taking it as like... "proof" that he hates women or something.I mean, his campaign manager is a women. Probably the first women campaign manager of a wining president. He has a daughter. Hes just being honest. You saying that oh all of these women at huffington post don't like this behavior... this says nothing about the many women hovering around a billionaire that do like it. This does not mean Trump was not telling the truth about women who he has encountered. How can him accurately describing many women around him be him having a bad attitude...

You are inventing stuff. Trump isn't boasting about having to fight women off. He's not claiming women can't keep their hands off him. He's claiming the opposite, that he can't keep his hands off women:

You know I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and **** her. She was married.

and

Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the kitty. You can do anything.

He's boasting about being able to get away with forcing himself on women.

So you are again trying to lump all taxes into the same category as abortion...

As far as wars, you want to pretend that is the same thing as paying for police and firemen... wars may be debatable... but at some point debates have to stop and we have to take action.

No, I'm saying wars are the same thing in some people's minds as abortion is in some Christian minds. Some people are horrified that Obama used their tax dollars to fund rebels in Syria claiming those rebels are a hairsbreadth away from being terrorists, and increasing the opposition to Assad only made the Russians bomb more civilians, killing women and children. Do we need to be involved in Syria? Did we need to be involved in Viet nam? Did we need to invade Iraq a second time? I knew some people who were extremely pissed we invaded the first time: killing people over oil. You had better take a look at how much of your tax dollar is spent killing people who may not have had to be killed for us to be OK. Then come back and talk about people being forced to pay for abortions. US citizens are routinely forced to pay for killing.

Name anything tax dollars are spent on and there's someone who objects. Anti-abortionists are not special in that sense. You are claiming they are, that abortion is different than all the other objections. How is it different from getting Syrians shot and blown up? How many innocent civilians have been killed by isis due to the US backed attempt to retake Mosul? Why should US citizens have paid for the My Lai massacre?

The Mỹ Lai Massacre (Vietnamese: thảm sát Mỹ Lai [tʰɐ̃ːm ʂɐ̌ːt mǐˀ lɐːj], [mǐˀlɐːj] (

listen); /ˌmiːˈlaɪ/, /ˌmiːˈleɪ/, or/ˌmaɪˈlaɪ/)[1] was the Vietnam War mass killing of between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians in South Vietnam on March 16, 1968. It was committed by U.S. Army soldiers from the Company C of the 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment,11th Brigade of the 23rd (Americal) Infantry Division. Victims included men, women, children, and infants. Some of the women were gang-raped and their bodies mutilated.[2][3] Twenty-six soldiers were charged with criminal offenses, but only Lieutenant William Calley Jr., a platoon leader in C Company, was convicted. Found guilty of killing 22 villagers, he was originally given a life sentence, but served only three and a half years under house arrest.

-wiki

Anyway, see Astronuc's post about how much Planned Parenthood money actually goes to abortions. That's not their thing. Their main goal is to prevent unwanted pregnancies and prevent the spread of STD's by education.

 

[fahraynk]

and health care. It's not so much about feminism, as it is about economics.

From http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/ (2011)
So, no abortions are not funded by federal taxes.

From - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...parenthood-actually-uses-its-federal-funding/As for the wars, we do need to protect ourselves. Perhaps it would help to not make enemies in the first place. Furthermore, we don't need to be spending $billions$ for over-priced contractors like KBR or Blackwater, renamed as XE Services in 2009, and now known as Academi since 2011.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_in_post-invasion_Iraq#Corruption
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/much-of...cial-auditors-final-report-to-congress-shows/

No abortions funded by federal taxes? Then you have nothing to worry about. Stopping gov funding of planned parenthood won't make itr harder to get abortions! Thanks for clearing that up. Also... is there a special clinic for men's health with government funding? Why are we funding women's health?

Quotation marks are for when you are quoting someone verbatim.

You are inventing stuff. Trump isn't boasting about having to fight women off. He's not claiming women can't keep their hands off him. He's claiming the opposite, that he can't keep his hands off women:andHe's boasting about being able to get away with forcing himself on women.

No, I'm saying wars are the same thing in some people's minds as abortion is in some Christian minds. Some people are horrified that Obama used their tax dollars to fund rebels in Syria claiming those rebels are a hairsbreadth away from being terrorists, and increasing the opposition to Assad only made the Russians bomb more civilians, killing women and children. Do we need to be involved in Syria? Did we need to be involved in Viet nam? Did we need to invade Iraq a second time? I knew some people who were extremely pissed we invaded the first time: killing people over oil. You had better take a look at how much of your tax dollar is spent killing people who may not have had to be killed for us to be OK. Then come back and talk about people being forced to pay for abortions. US citizens are routinely forced to pay for killing.

Name anything tax dollars are spent on and there's someone who objects. Anti-abortionists are not special in that sense. You are claiming they are, that abortion is different than all the other objections. How is it different from getting Syrians shot and blown up? How many innocent civilians have been killed by isis due to the US backed attempt to retake Mosul? Why should US citizens have paid for the My Lai massacre?

-wiki

Anyway, see Astronuc's post about how much Planned Parenthood money actually goes to abortions. That's not their thing. Their main goal is to prevent unwanted pregnancies and prevent the spread of STD's by education.

scare quotes
noun

1. quotation marks used around a word or phrase when they are not required, thereby eliciting attention or doubts.

 

[Astronuc]

Also... is there a special clinic for men's health with government funding?

Planned Parenthood, which is for those who cannot afford a regular doctor or specialist.

Part of Planned Parenthood's mission is to reduce or eliminate unwanted pregnancy, so the number of abortions decreases.

 

[russ_watters]

Planned Parenthood, which is for those who cannot afford a regular doctor or specialist.

That didn't answer the question.

Look, I'm pro choice and in favor of funding Planned Parenthood, but there is a lot of false sexism used in many arguments about it. No one is ever heard saying "No woman should have a say over my prostate health!", but it is practically a mantra in womens' health arguments. My level of sympathy for people who need my vote drops substantially when they try to exclude me from the conversation.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

No one is ever heard saying "No woman should have a say over my prostate health", but it is practically a mantra in womens' health arguments. My level of sympathy for people who need my vote drops substantially when they try to exclude me from the conversation.

When has prostate health been a controversial topic or been threatened? When have men as a group been systematically oppressed?

 

[Astronuc]

That didn't answer the question.

Sure it does.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/men

And they provide prenatal care - https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/pregnancy/prenatal-care

The critics of abortion emphasize 'federal taxes' paying for abortion, which is not the case. Or they emphasize 'women's health care', when in fact, PP provides health care to men as well. Clearly PP provides a range of services to families, who cannot afford healthcare like those with health insurance. According to PP, "For millions of women, Medicaid could make the difference between getting access to cancer screenings and birth control, or going without. Studies have shown that women with Medicaid coverage are more likely than uninsured women to have received a Pap test in the last two years."

I do agree that there is a lot of heated rhetoric on the issue of PP.

 

[russ_watters]

When has prostate health been a controversial topic or been threatened?

I honestly don't know if prostate exams/care is covered by normal insurance, but I suspect it is because it is preventative. Perhaps a better example would be vasectomies, which google tells me are covered by most, but not all insurance programs.

When have men as a group been systematically oppressed?

I don't see how that relates to my question, except... I sure hope you are not saying that if one group is oppressed at one time in their history, then later on other groups should lose their right to vote?

Guys, we live in a democracy. Everyone over 18 who is not a felon gets a vote. You cannot exclude a person from discussion/voting about an issue based on their sex (or race, for that matter).

 

[russ_watters]

Sure it does.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/men

Sorry, I misread your response and also didn't realize their men's reproductive services were so extensive...

...but this then beggs the question of even the accuracy of the mantra that men should have no say in the reproductive health of women: since Planned Parenthood services men, then men have a direct interest in whether or not it should be funded. Perhaps if women instead of trying to exclude men from the conversation included them and emphasized that it serves both, that would help the cause.