oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
This^^^^
....I would have written .... it is in company with men, but.... fair enough....
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Everyday Sexism by Females
- Thread starter Secret Chief
- Start date
This^^^^
Alceste
Vagabond
Yeah, giving oppressed demographics equal rights and privileges doesn't require taking any away from those who have the most. When we achieve equal rights, everybody has them together.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Yep.....
A perfect example of 'equal rights in comparison' happened last year when female drivers were made to pay the same insurance premium as male drivers. This is completely brain-dead concept of equality. Females crash less often, etc etc. Somebody in the EU needs their brain sorting....
The comparison to that particular stupidity could be making me, a 65 year old male, pay the same driving insurance premium as a 17 year old, using 'Age discrimination' as a reason. Ergo...... they might just as well pass a rule that everybody, regardless of age, gender, claims etc..... all pay the same premium.
These leaders and legislatoirs mostly have 'best university' degrees..... yet look at their common sense...... :banghead3
Alceste
Vagabond
Yeah, that's a silly rule. What we have here is that everyone starts at the same rate and gets a few bucks knocked off for every year without a claim or a ticket. That gives most women and older drivers the benefit of lower rates without discriminating on the basis of age or gender.
Our auto insurance is provided by a public corporation though. I can't see how the private sector could make something like that work, since they are under pressure to compete with each other, invent new "products" all the time, generate profit, etc.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Public corporation? So motor insurance in Canada is provided by a government body, or single government controlled body? I didn't know that.
Some of our insurers are bloody awful. In 2008 my car was written off by a careless driver. My Insurer sent me a cheque for less than my car was worth. (They do a deal with the other Insurer later). I complained and the insurer insisted I find 5 advertisements showing exactly similar cars to prove my valuation. I did this and they rejected the lot because of lower milages etc. etc .... this went on and finally I sent them a 10-day-or-else letter to which they replied that I had to present my appeal to the insurance ombudsman. Clever!! Anybody who has a complaint about (mostly) anything gets directed to an Ombudsman..... this is probably a corrupted cop out. When I wrote to their registered office, with details of my claim, and 'telling' them that in 10 days I would lodge a claim with Canterbury County Court direct and leave it to a district judge.... they paid everything..... the lot...... couldn't do enough. Ombudsman.... yeah...!
Ergo....A national corporation might be less corrupt, more easily regulated......
Alceste
Vagabond
It varies from province to province, but in the province I live in it is a public corporation. Not exactly the same as "the government" running it - it's kind of an arms length deal using corporate business practices. We've got a few. For example, ferries, electricity, and even booze are managed by public corporations. The up side is that when they do a crap job they are much more accountable to the public than private corporations would be, and there is none of the inefficiency and cost escalation the private profit motive tends to drive.
samosasauce
Active Member
Sexism isn't acceptable in any form, from anyone, in my opinion. it's easier for people to notice sexism toward women, I think, because women have experienced such a vast amount of it for such a long time. This doesn't make sexism any better if it's toward a man, and I'm not even hinting at that. This is why egalitarianism, empathy, critical thinking and analysis are the best policies, in my opinion.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
This link reads like a Poe.
Does she really believe what she says?
But even if she were genuine, we know from feminists posting here at RF, the feminist
movement is uniformly positive, never angry, strictly about gender equality, & that they
pursue equal rights for men on their behalf. Clearly, she is no true feminist.
Last edited:
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Well, she is a conservative, so...
But from what I can tell it is legit. The archives go back to 2011 and it seems like a typical amateur blog to me.
Last edited:
She defines it narrowly as being fiscally conservative.
MD
qualiaphile
Why does this surprise you? Any system built on an ideology, where a large number people believe it, and where people hold power will abuse the rights of others who don't fit within their ideology. Patriarchy, communism, socialism, capitalism, slavery, etc.
True equality is impossible, there will always be systems which oppress and people in power will always pick those that suit their own views. Picking anyone else would threaten their own position of power.
Revolutions replace one set of oppressors with another.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Clearly
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
My first and quickest notion that it's fake: Admissions offices aren't typically reading applications in June. I'm applying for those sorts of positions right now - they're actually orienting kids in June, not sending out acceptance/denial letters. Late stuff happens, but application reading time is Thanksgiving onward, not oops April's late so we're into June now. Also, allowing temp. workers to make those decisions rather than just do data entry? Nope. I don't buy it. I call Poe if nothing else on that particular post.
By the way, because if I don't, I'm sure it'll be perceived as silent acceptance, her behavior, if real, is unacceptable and out of line, it is not in line with the ideology of feminism however she labels herself. And no, that's not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy ask Sunstone if you need an explanation on the difference.
ETA: Reading the previous post her job goes from "passing it on to the director" to "sending denial letters" and throwing others away. No way. Poe.
Alceste
Vagabond
This person should be fired.
Alceste
Vagabond
In fairness, she could actually be holding that position and behaving exactly as she claims, but the behavior she describes is still illegal and would never be defended by her employers if they knew about it.
To give you an example, I once held a position with a large amount of responsibility where I dealt with the public. If I was a crackpot or ideologue, I could have pitched requests into the garbage based on the gender, race, age, or socioeconomic status of the applicant. But if I'd been caught, I'd have been immediately fired and possibly prosecuted. Also, as an egalitarian feminist I don't believe such discrimination is in the least bit acceptable, so was never once tempted to treat any request differently based on the natural attributes of the applicant.
Personally, I attribute this person's utter incompetence to the fact she identifies as a conservative, not to the fact she also identifies as a feminist.
Alceste
Vagabond
Clearly she's a complete idiot. I don't think it's fair to let complete idiots tell us what they are or aren't and then project their completely idiotic values onto competent people who subscribe to the intelligent philosophical positions their completely idiotic arguments parody.
Last edited:
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
Hmmmm. Poe. Learn something every day.
Be sure to note that this backward lunkhead was the first to call Poe.