Doctor Treating Pregnant Women With Experimental Drug To Prevent Lesbianism

See everyone? More proof that the patriarchy totally doesn't exist and never did ever! Stop bitching (a totally gender neutral word everyone) feminists, The Man is emasculated with job cuts and totally at the mercy of money-grubbing women who get married and then divorced for moolah and kids.

And for the love of god stop complaining about things like abortion! You wouldn't want to get a victim complex (which only women develop, not men who sit whining about job losses and gender ratios in college classes) would you?

Psy-4 wrote:

You're just whining that the inevitability isn't coming fast enough.

It's not an inevitability.

Quote :

Oh, you seem to be very fond of >implying that women will obviously get the ax first, because they are women, but let's see some actual headlines in relation to jobs and layoffs this recession has brought us.

[links]

That's nice (especially the part where the first two articles talk about how the jobs that women are keeping are lower paid with fewer hours and fewer benefits), but it wasn't the question I was asking. I was talking about a situation where the male and female employees have the same job titles in the same firm and should therefore be equally likely to leave.

Quote :

Do... do you relish being the victim? Because that will soon turn into victim complex.

I doubt it. Also, I do not 'relish being the victim', I'm giving my opinion based on the things I see and hear every day. Talking about something doesn't mean you approve of it, does it?

Cyberwulf wrote:

See everyone? More proof that the patriarchy totally doesn't exist and never did ever! Stop bitching (a totally gender neutral word everyone) feminists, The Man is emasculated with job cuts and totally at the mercy of money-grubbing women who get married and then divorced for moolah and kids.

And for the love of god stop complaining about things like abortion! You wouldn't want to get a victim complex (which only women develop, not men who sit whining about job losses and gender ratios in college classes) would you?

More words being put in my mouth than Alpha-Bits, son.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sutremaine wrote:

It's not an inevitability.

Excellent rebuttal. All of the evidence that younger generations are more accepting and liberal and will right what they perceive as injustice done by their predecessors (slavery get abolished? what?) is refuted.

Sutremaine wrote:

the jobs that women are keeping are lower paid with fewer hours and fewer benefits

Capitalism will gleefully take advantage of anything that helps its bottom line. Complain about capitalism on your own time.

Sutremaine wrote:

I was talking about a situation where the male and female employees have the same job titles in the same firm and should therefore be equally likely to leave.

No such thing. The less productive will go, otherwise the one closer to retirement will go, otherwise the higher paid one will go, otherwise the lesser liked one will go.

oh Psy you really believe nobody remembers what you wrote a page or two ago about how

- more women than men enter and graduate from college
- the judicial system favours women to the extent that men are now on marriage strike

I do love how you insist that things are getting more and more liberal what with Prop 8 and the continuous obstruction of access to both abortion and contraception, it's almost like you've had your head up your ass for the past eight years

Cyberwulf wrote:

oh Psy you really believe nobody remembers what you wrote a page or two ago about how

- more women than men enter and graduate from college
- the judicial system favours women to the extent that men are now on marriage strike

I fail to see the connection to your previous post.

Cyberwulf wrote:

I do love how you insist that things are getting more and more liberal what with Prop 8 and the continuous obstruction of access to both abortion and contraception, it's almost like you've had your head up your ass for the past eight years

Wow, a single segment of the graph is going down? That must mean that whole graph is going down! This invalidates everything! Also, women have no voting rights, slavery is still legal, the current president is John McCain, and the U.S. doesn't have some form of universal healthcare.

Also, yes, let's pick the worst country that is the example of this sort of thing, just like the soviet union is picked any time socialism is discussed. I guess you could do worse, and pick a middle eastern country.

Also, just an fyi, I live in a city where it was ruled legal for women to go topless, because men can.

Psy-4 wrote:

Also, just an fyi, I live in a city where it was ruled legal for women to go topless, because men can.

But do they?

Yes.

Psy, I don't see why you think gender equality is so imminent. There were some societies along history where women had quite a few rights. But whenever those societies went to shit, do you think anyone even remembered? If an asteroid hit the Earth right now and people had to rebuild everything from scratch, what do you think are the odds that women won't be relegated to baby-making duty while the big, capable men take charge? Any rights women have right now are tenuously held until mentalities change. And I think that that's Cy's point, that all the changes are superficial and that some people's mentalities still haven't changed, which doesn't bode well for feminism in the long-term.

Cyberwulf may be a bit overbearing, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have a point.

(I'm just going to regret jumping in the middle of this shitstorm, I can already tell.)

Psy-4 wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

oh Psy you really believe nobody remembers what you wrote a page or two ago about how

- more women than men enter and graduate from college
- the judicial system favours women to the extent that men are now on marriage strike

I fail to see the connection to your previous post.

That's okay, Psy, everyone else does.

Quote :

Cyberwulf wrote:

I do love how you insist that things are getting more and more liberal what with Prop 8 and the continuous obstruction of access to both abortion and contraception, it's almost like you've had your head up your ass for the past eight years

Wow, a single segment of the graph is going down? That must mean that whole graph is going down!

Godbag legislators restricting access to a legal medical procedure, and permitting pharmacists and medical professionals to deny women access to legal medications and treatments based on their "beliefs"? Pfff, a minor thing, really. Homosexuals having some of their legal rights revoked? No big deal! CERTAINLY not indicative of a system that favours heterosexual men since women managers are proof that that system doesn't exist.

Quote :

Also, women have no voting rights,

How many female legislators and politicians are there?

Quote :

slavery is still legal,

Institutionalised racism is still with us, as any POC will tell you. But it's clear from your comment about Prop 8 that you don't believe the kyriarchy exists, either.

You also haven't heard of sex trafficking, or the disgusting exploitation of undocumented immigrants and migrant workers. But not to worry, because those things are illegal and therefore don't happen. And if they do happen, the people doing it are always caught and locked up. Just like with rape!

Quote :

the current president is John McCain,

A BLACK PRESIDENT MEANS THAT ALL ISMS MAGICALLY DISAPPEARED

Quote :

and the U.S. doesn't have some form of universal healthcare.

A form that forces women who want abortions to seek private insurance or pay for them out of their own pockets. Something that the supposedly progressive party compromised on to get the bill put in place, because women's issues are just a special interest plank that don't affect real people.

Quote :

Also, yes, let's pick the worst country that is the example of this sort of thing, just like the soviet union is picked any time socialism is discussed.

All those points you've been citing about how bad men have it, do they refer to the US or to somewhere else? Somewhere in the West, right? Somewhere that's "enlightened"? Yeah, I think so.

Quote :

Also, just an fyi, I live in a city where it was ruled legal for women to go topless, because men can.

Access to abortion and contraception being obstructed because Bible-thumpers want to control women's sexuality - no big deal.
Homosexuals having their right to get married taken away - no big deal.
One city where it's legal for women to go topless - PROOF OF SOMETHING.

So in your city, Psy, guys don't ogle topless women any more? They don't bother with Playboy or other softcore porn because boobs are just meh and no longer fetish objects?

Cy, my love, you'll confuse the poor kid with all this talk of kyriarchy. He won't have macro to illustrate that.

Nihilist wrote:

That kind of badassery deserves a tall can of Mickey's. Because dude, you got a lot of mensch.

Quote :

Mensch (Yiddish: מענטש mentsh; German: Mensch, for "human being") means "a person of integrity and honor".[1] The opposite of a mensch is an unmensch (meaning: an utterly cruel or evil person). According to Leo Rosten, the Yiddish maven and author of The Joys of Yiddish, mensch is "someone to admire and emulate, someone of noble character. The key to being “a real mensch” is nothing less than character, rectitude, dignity, a sense of what is right, responsible, decorous".

I see what you were trying to do there but that was not the word you were looking for.

Cyberwulf wrote:

So in your city, Psy, guys don't ogle topless women any more? They don't bother with Playboy or other softcore porn because boobs are just meh and no longer fetish objects?

Gotta say, I disagree with you on this one... I don't necessarily have a problem with straight guys really liking tits or really liking looking at them in a state of undress... I like looking at guys' dicks, after all.

I think that it's when men take "I like looking at boobs!" to a point where there is sexual harrasment, or potential danger, like in the thread about the guys who followed the topless women protesters, then that's wrong.

ZoZo's moronic noncontributing patronizing aside, I was reading through your post, thinking of responses and ready to call you out for putting words in my mouth for the umpteenth time, when I got to this

Cyberwulf wrote:

So in your city, Psy, guys don't ogle topless women any more? They don't bother with Playboy or other softcore porn because boobs are just meh and no longer fetish objects?

and stopped.

Did you really try to play down and dismiss women making progress in terms of equality, by citing men still finding breasts attractive? Yeah, no. I don't have to put up with this. I knew your debating was dubious at best, but shit. Putting words in your oppositions mouth, unqualified skepticism (because you know better than a few hundred Ph.D.'s), patronizing and ridiculing, playing down or outright ignoring anything and everything that counters your point, and citing unrelated events as supporting of your point.

I'm out. Feel free to feel smug and victorious.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

Also, women have no voting rights,

How many female legislators and politicians are there?

In the U.S. Congress there are 17 women in the Senate (out of 99 with 1 vacant seat), and in the House there are 75 women (out of 433 with 2 vacancies). Three states have Senate delegations composed entirely of women (California, Washington and Maine), and half the states in the Union have either a female Representative or Senator. A woman is currently the Speaker of the House (3rd most powerful position in the line of Presidential Succession).

If Solicitor General Kagan is confirmed as expected, there will be 3 women on the United States Supreme Court. 7 women are members of President Barack Obama's cabinet, including the Secretaries of State, Labor, HHS and Homeland Security.

There are currently 6 states with female governors, and 5 others had women leave the office of governor within the last 2 years. There are significant percentages of women in every State Legislature (including some where women hold the positions of Speaker, Majority or Minority Leader), and numerous executive offices at the state level are held by women.

Even compared to 1992, the data indicates significant upticks in every political segment with the exception of national defense.

Psy-4 wrote:

All of the evidence that younger generations are more accepting and liberal and will right what they perceive as injustice done by their predecessors (slavery get abolished? what?) is refuted.

Other people have covered this, but slavery is an excellent illustration of what I'm talking about. Slavery was abolished in America in 1865. Martin Luther King's famous speech was in 1963. 98 years after the end of the 'perceived' injustice of slavery, and still it was necessary to force white America to pay attention to the rights of black people. That delay was for a group of people who were barely known to the Western world five hundred years earlier. It's going to take a lot longer to get rights for a group of people who've been oppressed throughout history.

Quote :

Capitalism will gleefully take advantage of anything that helps its bottom line. Complain about capitalism on your own time.

What does capitalism have to do with anything? Do you really think that women in non-capitalist countries have it better in the job market?

Quote :

Sutremaine wrote:

I was talking about a situation where the male and female employees have the same job titles in the same firm and should therefore be equally likely to leave.

No such thing. The less productive will go, otherwise the one closer to retirement will go, otherwise the higher paid one will go, otherwise the lesser liked one will go.

And you really think those are the only criteria by which each of these hypothetical managers will be judged by their bosses and work colleagues? You've also misread what I wrote. Let me restate it with a clarification. I was talking about a situation where the male and female employees have the same job titles in the same firm and should therefore be equally to leave, all other things being equal. Also bear in mind what I said earlier about women not having access to the same favours and networks as men do, so I'm being generous in assuming that all other things are equal.

(on preview)
Are you leaving? Nice job not only misreading Cyberwulf's post, but misrepresenting her words in exactly the same way you claim she does to you. Nice job doing it in your last post in the thread, where you don't have to answer any response to what you wrote.

Psy-4 wrote:

Did you really try to play down and dismiss women making progress in terms of equality,

Someone's changed his tune. So the patriarchy is evident, and you're only saying that progress is being made?

Psy-4 wrote:

Did you really try to play down and dismiss women making progress in terms of equality,

My not accepting that patriarchy is over and done with is actually DISMISSING ANY PROGRESS IN TERMS OF EQUALITY WOMEN HAVE MADE! Well that's me telt.

Quote :

by citing men still finding breasts attractive?

Yes, molecule-mind, that's exactly what I did.

You know exactly what I meant. I seriously doubt that women can walk around topless in your city without leering perverts ogling and hollering at them, because after all that's what tits are for - men's enjoyment. Think I'm wrong? Then tell me why a woman can't breastfeed in public without someone having a fucking conniption.

Quote :

Yeah, no. I don't have to put up with this.

OOOHH HOOO HOOOOO THE LADY WAS MEEEEAN TO MEEEE

Quote :

Putting words in your oppositions mouth,

What words, Psy? You cited a few facts devoid of any context and declared patriarchy to be imaginary. You had absolutely nothing to say when I suggested you look at the context, only bothering to talk about women managers. You did the same thing when you said that slavery was illegal.

You're having a fit because you wanted me to challenge you on things like college admissions - like some of the other posters did - because you had your links all ready to finally pwn that stupid bitch Cyberwulf and her anti-male agenda. Who the fuck did you think you were dealing with, Psy? You really think I haven't seen every one of your talking points brought up before? You really think I haven't seen them rebutted before?

I went outside your parameters and challenged you on the context. And you had nothing to say. Nothing.

Quote :

unqualified skepticism (because you know better than a few hundred Ph.D.'s),

Living as a woman for the past 28 and a bit years doesn't give me any kind of knowledge or life experience.

Quote :

patronizing and ridiculing,

Gasp! Not patronising and ridiculing! Not on Why, God, Why?, the forum where people subject the creative efforts of thirteen year olds to cruel mockery! Lie down before you have the vapours!

Quote :

playing down or outright ignoring anything and everything that counters your point, and citing unrelated events as supporting of your point.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, my darling dear.

And how dare I not confine the discussion to the areas that you selected. How dare I not let the leading expert on whether or not patriarchy exists set the agenda.

Quote :

I'm out. Feel free to feel smug and victorious.

Oh, you'll be back.

Spotts1701 wrote:

In the U.S. Congress there are 17 women in the Senate (out of 99 with 1 vacant seat), and in the House there are 75 women (out of 433 with 2 vacancies). Three states have Senate delegations composed entirely of women (California, Washington and Maine), and half the states in the Union have either a female Representative or Senator. A woman is currently the Speaker of the House (3rd most powerful position in the line of Presidential Succession).

If Solicitor General Kagan is confirmed as expected, there will be 3 women on the United States Supreme Court. 7 women are members of President Barack Obama's cabinet, including the Secretaries of State, Labor, HHS and Homeland Security.

There are currently 6 states with female governors, and 5 others had women leave the office of governor within the last 2 years. There are significant percentages of women in every State Legislature (including some where women hold the positions of Speaker, Majority or Minority Leader), and numerous executive offices at the state level are held by women.

Even compared to 1992, the data indicates significant upticks in every political segment with the exception of national defense.

Progress, yes, but at the moment it's still overwhelmingly male.

Sutremaine wrote:

Are you leaving? Nice job not only misreading Cyberwulf's post, but misrepresenting her words in exactly the same way you claim she does to you. Nice job doing it in your last post in the thread, where you don't have to answer any response to what you wrote.

He has no response, Sutremaine. It infuriates him that I didn't play his little game. Junior's having a tantrum because I wouldn't let him win.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Gasp! Not patronising and ridiculing! Not on Why, God, Why?, the forum where people subject the creative efforts of thirteen year olds to cruel mockery! Lie down before you have the vapours!

IOW:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

ZoZo wrote:

Cy, my love, you'll confuse the poor kid with all this talk of kyriarchy. He won't have macro to illustrate that.

Non-words often don't.

gaijinguy wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

Cy, my love, you'll confuse the poor kid with all this talk of kyriarchy. He won't have macro to illustrate that.

Non-words often don't.

Well, I suppose "intersecting structures of domination" is a concept some people find difficult to follow.

Lexin wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

Cy, my love, you'll confuse the poor kid with all this talk of kyriarchy. He won't have macro to illustrate that.

Non-words often don't.

Well, I suppose "intersecting structures of domination" is a concept some people find difficult to follow.

I think it's the "whiffing on dictionary.com, the OED, and Merriam-Webster" that's more the issue here.

gaijinguy wrote:

Lexin wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

Cy, my love, you'll confuse the poor kid with all this talk of kyriarchy. He won't have macro to illustrate that.

Non-words often don't.

Well, I suppose "intersecting structures of domination" is a concept some people find difficult to follow.

I think it's the "whiffing on dictionary.com, the OED, and Merriam-Webster" that's more the issue here.

Language moves, changes and expands. Live with it.

Lexin wrote:

Language moves, changes and expands. Live with it.

I'll do that, right after I bug the expediter to push my docs through because 230 needs more monkey jizz.

Nihilist wrote:

I was being sarcastic.

My bad. Misused yiddish just sets me off.

Psy-4 wrote:

Sutremaine wrote:

If the trend continues. Look at the way that Roe vs. Wade has been enforced recently -- if the attitudes that lead to inequalities persist, then equal rights will always have to be fought for despite being an alleged right. It doesn't matter that wages for women are rising if people's fundamental opinions on women and work don't change, because the expectation that women should be the ones to make the job sacrifices will still be there.

Oh boo hoo. So your children, or, at worst, your grandkids will see it. Because the 18-29 age group is the most accepting and liberal one, and the older generations are the ones that hold the fundamental opinions and expectations. All of which will stop on the account of them being dead. You're just whining that the inevitability isn't coming fast enough.

Sutremaine wrote:

If a firm has an equal number of male and female managers and has to cut managerial jobs, what do you think the gender ratio will be like afterwards?

Oh, you seem to be very fond of >implying that women will obviously get the ax first, because they are women, but let's see some actual headlines in relation to jobs and layoffs this recession has brought us.

More Women Than Men Keeping Jobs
As Layoffs Surge, Women May Pass Men in Job Force
Recession hitting men harder
Losing jobs in unequal numbers
Men Suffer Brunt of Job Losses in Recession

Oh shit, WHAT A TWEEST.

Another point for my theory that this universe is directed by M.Night Shyamalan.

Sutremaine wrote:

I think it's more likely that the pay and employment gap will close to a certain level and stay there. There won't be equal treatment for women, just a new and more acceptable standard of inequality.

Do... do you relish being the victim? Because that will soon turn into victim complex.

Oh man, I fucking love it when people post the first five links from google news without actually reading them, because seriously. Did you even try to read these? A lot of them fly directly in the face of the point you're trying to make.

From your first link:

Quote :

Economists say the chasm is due to the fact that the current
downturn [Bam will get to this later] is clobbering male-dominated industries centered on creating
goods, such as construction, which is about 90 percent male. Women, on
the other hand, work in more service-oriented jobs where there is still
a demand, such as healthcare, in which nearly 80 percent of the workers
are women and which added more than 400,000 jobs in the last year.
But just because women are keeping their jobs doesn't mean they're
advancing in them, especially since those service-oriented jobs
populated by women aren't exactly the high-paying fast-track type.
Women made up only 6.2 percent of top earners in 2008, down from 6.7
percent in 2007, according to a study
by Catalyst, a nonprofit group that promotes opportunities for women in
business. And women held 15.7 percent of corporate officer positions in
2008, an increase of only .3 percent from last year.

And your second link?

Quote :

The proportion of women who are working has changed very little since
the recession started. But a full 82 percent of the job losses have
befallen men, who are heavily represented in distressed industries like
manufacturing and construction. Women tend to be employed in areas like
education and health care, which are less sensitive to economic ups and
downs, and in jobs that allow more time for child care and other
domestic work.

Quote :

In recessions, the percentage of families supported by women tends to
rise slightly, and it is expected to do so when this year’s numbers are
tallied. As of November, women held 49.1 percent of the nation’s jobs,
according to nonfarm payroll data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By another measure, including farm workers and the self-employed, women constituted 47.1 percent of the work force.

So while there are fewer women losing their jobs, this seems - as said by the very articles you're citing as evidence -to be a temporary repercussion of the downturned economy instead of the long-in-coming equalizing of the workforce like you seem to think it is. That women are keeping their jobs also doesn't reconcile the fact that women still make $.80 to the dollar of a man, as was also stated in the second article you posted:

Quote :

Women may be safer in their jobs, but tend to find it harder to support
a family. For one thing, they work fewer overall hours than men. Women
are much more likely to be in part-time jobs without health insurance
or unemployment insurance. Even in full-time jobs, women earn 80 cents
for each dollar of their male counterparts’ income, according to the
government data.

Your third link spits out the same statistics as the first two, but focuses mostly on anecdotes on men's difficulties with no longer being the sole, manly breadwinners of their households; while this is interesting, it doesn't have much to do with this discussion or the topic of the thread at hand. Before it went off on a tangent about male suicide rates, however, it did give this piece of information:

Quote :

The last time the U.S. dealt with such a large gender gap in unemployment was during the Great Depression.

This, again, points to the possibility that this newfound 'equalizing' in the workplace that you're seeing will be only temporary.

It's also worth noting that male loss of jobs in fields isn't across the board like you're insinuating; the reason why men are statistically losing their jobs more than women are is because the jobs where men make up the majority of the workforce are losing a lot of ground.

first link wrote:

Economists say the chasm is due to the fact that the current downturn
is clobbering male-dominated industries centered on creating goods,
such as construction, which is about 90 percent male.

third link wrote:

• Construction: One
  in five workers in this field is unemployed, and more than 95% of those
  out of work are men, according to the department's March employment
  report.
  

• Manufacturing: That
  same data show that manufacturing jobs -- of which nearly 80% are held
  by men -- declined 4.5% from the fourth quarter of 2008 to the first
  quarter of this year.
  

• Finance: The largely male financial industry cut 260,110 jobs in 2008, according to outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

What Sutremaine is saying could very well be true within a company (or even within these effected industries), and your links have fuck all to do with that and offer no relevant counterpoint to it.

tl;dr: Sexism in the workplace is still around and you should read the articles you trot out as evidence
tl;dr2: lol honey seriously though read your links