This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet
and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs
told in the words of my favorite human beings.
In this edition we have possibly the biggest moron yet, who genuinely thinks that giving every single woman compensation will cure today's inequalities. Just have a look at some of the bollocks she comes out with.
__________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.vice.com/read/give-your-money-to-women-its-simple-284
__________________________________________________________________________________
Well it's always nice to know that articles aren't going to be biased, and by the looks of this introduction I can clearly see there's absolutely no underlying agenda to this issue, and that this is just good, honest journalism. It's also nice to see the author getting mixed up between wages and earnings, and also providing sources from the same fucking website that this interview is posted on, which in an article that centers around the topic of equal pay isn't a particularly convincing start. I guess it says a lot about an author when they genuinely think equality can be created by giving preferential treatment to one gender. Yeah, I'm sure giving money to every single woman is going to solve gender based income disparities, and not at all make further issues out of a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. The reason for all this, well it's apparently 'emotional labor', which unlike the author states is not scientifically proven in any way. Your source is a piece written by professors in public administration, which as far as I'm concerned isn't a science. Interestingly my search on 'Web of Science' couldn't find that exact wording, and instead directed me to articles related to emotional stress after childbirth. Still, at least it's reassuring to know that this argument will be based on reliable and factual evidence.
My two primary issues with this argument are that not all women are in relationships with men, so giving them money wouldn't solve a damn thing. And secondly if this 'emotional labor' only occurs when women enter relationships with men, then surely the solution is to not enter relationships with men so you don't end up being paid for merely existing. Maybe instead of scrounging money off of hard working men who've earned it, you should try and do the same instead of sharing pointless hashtags like the selfish cow you really are. You say every single woman has to put up with a lot of bullshit, but then so do the men that have read this article; and trust me there's a lot of bullshit to get through here. So why isn't it me demanding money off of you? As you say 'any kind of labor' gets payed for. I'm not sure if you missed the history class on forced labor, but I must have missed the part where paying slaves would have instantly solved the problems. As for the science element, well here is some that's actually been proven: The reason that men go around commanding the attention of women like it's their natural due is because it's exactly as you say. For proof please refer to the mechanism of sexual selection. Or don't actually, there might be some facts in it.
Oh good, it's Lauren Chief Elk, who sounds like the shittest Native American chief in history. She probably owns a novelty casino in Blackpool in which she claims to be donating the profits to her clan of oppressed women. Even better news is that she's clinically insa- I mean a 'prison abolitionist'. What a fantastic idea abolishing prisons is apart from in every single way. I guess the only reason Chief Elk wants to get rid of prisons is so the rate of male murders goes up. That way basement dwelling males like myself get what's coming to them. As it happens I live in an apartment in Brighton without a basement, but I'll happily throw my fists in indignation, as like many rational people that's my response to moronic behaviour. Maybe if you don't want this sort of abuse then I suggest shutting up and stop poking the hornet's nest with a huge shitty stick. A recent UN report actually stated that the person most likely to receive internet abuse are 19 year old men, which include myself, so actually I should be the one getting angry and crying oppression at you. But you know why I don't? Because it's not a gender based issue, no matter how much vague bullshit you try and throw into the article.
Wow, what an unbelievable question that is; almost like being interviewed by David Frost or Jeremy Paxman. I'm sure a serious interviewer would love to hear how you're thinking of ways to bring justice for violence, although I suggest thinking a bit harder and reconsidering the life choices that got you into this interview. You might need an extra brain cell for that one, as the woman who believes that every man abuses every woman can't be very bright. That's not to say I don't abuse women, no I actively abuse women every second of the day with my fellow patriarchy, and so yes I should be giving tonnes of money to women who do fuck all, even though I'm unemployed and have a student loan. But then I don't because I'm such a horrible, horrible man. God, why was I born a man? Now this means I'll have to live my life knowing that because of a generalisation that doesn't reflect the reality of modern life I'm an absolute monster that should give away my hard earned cash to abused women I've never met.
Wait, I thought that feminism was about empowering the choices women make. Surely staying at home is a choice, so why would this need to be compensated by the population that actually do work for their earnings? In terms of economics you must surely be aware that this kind of policy is just suicidal, and even in terms of social changes the only difference will be more women being encouraged to stay at home, which is only going to further these wage disparities. It's a totally flawed policy that makes zero sense from a logical perspective. You just cannot compare the employment of individuals to simple household chores as the concept is entirely different. Maybe when I was ten I might have expected to be compensated for mowing the lawn, but now that I've matured I realise that there is a selfish purpose to doing household work. They're just individual tasks that need doing, so if you're getting emotional labor over them then that's your issue, and not one to penalise millions of men over. I'm unemployed and live on my own so I have to do the fucking chores by myself, but at no point does it ever occur to me that I should be being payed like it was a full time job. Surely you must realise that at least most of what you're saying is total bollocks.
'I'm on board' is a strange thing to say halfway through what I would suppose was a sophisticated interview, but then I guess I'm just a stupid man who would expect objective questions in a serious interview. Not that it matters anyway since the question wasn't even fucking answered, instead just some generic drivel about supposed inequality. Maybe the issue that giving money in no way rectifies inequality finally rang a bell in the vast empty chasms of the interviewee's brain. Saying somebody should be given cash because tragedy costs a lot of money is a ludicrous point. What next, everyone gets a state funded funeral? No, okay apparently that's 'reasonable' in your head.
'Women have to act as therapists to men'. What's your case study for this one, a fucking 'Ladybird' book from the 1950's? If it's really that difficult for women in relationships then why the fuck do so many do it? Surely if it was that bad then women just wouldn't; it's not as if it's mandatory. What you're essentially saying here is that women should be compensated for not using common sense. No, I can see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Wait, this is the same fucking paragraph as before, only worded differently. When pressed over your logic you couldn't even give two reasons as to why your argument makes any sense. If the events you're describing really are that traumatic then surely you must be able to come up with at least two reasons. So far the only point you're giving me is that being a nice person is harmful; who would of thought that a statement as stupid or controversial as that would get a negative backlash? Maybe we should be compensating people like Martin Luther King or Gandhi for being controversial since we're giving away money to everyone. Oh no, of course they're men who it's been scientifically proven are immune from this 'emotional labor'. Still I implore you to take the same cure they tried and send a bullet through your skull as that might save a lot of people the emotional labor of hearing your dumb arguments. Speaking of suicide, there was absolutely no mention of how suicide rates are significantly higher in men throughout the article which would provide evidence that men cope with higher levels of stress. Not that there were any statistics used as they simply prove the inverse of this idiotic argument.
No to be fair I've lost track of the amount of times I've heard of women being fired for this 'emotional labor'. You make it sound like controlling this fictional construct is the key to any job, which since you still haven't provided any rational evidence as to why it even exists is something I find extremely unlikely. And let me tell you something else: The reason that women are told that they're inherent caregivers is because they are. You know that thing called evolution that drives all life on earth? Well over many years that process has selected human females to be the gender that is only limited by the number of resources in reproduction, hence why they're more evolved to play a more maternal role in any relationship. Although having said that this article is adequate evidence to doubt the theory of natural selection being as a person who makes theories as stupid as this is somehow still in existence.
Then we arrive at what must be the biggest and most ridiculous over-exaggeration of all time. Apparently 'empires will crumble' if women cut off this emotional labor. I don't know if this is the fictional empire in her head, but please enlighten me on how empires would crumble if women stopped playing the role of therapists to the men. You just can't make such a sweeping and overarching statement like that without backing it up, otherwise you sound like a massive idiot. Even then, why the fuck would you want empires to crumble? The reason you're in such a privileged position to be writing this article is because of the very existence of empires, so why the hell would you be campaigning to disrupt this system that has obviously succeeded for people such as yourself over the years? Maybe I'd be more understanding if you didn't come up with the bullshit that all men have the ability to drain women of knowledge. Funny that I never learnt that piece of obvious slander in science lessons, which according to you is a basis to start blackmailing men at the end of the paragraph. No wonder this woman doesn't want prisons, she's more barbaric than most of the inmates.
Yes, how could I forget that the service industry is famous for exclusively hiring women? I know if women are payed less then it would make sense for businesses to exclusively hire them, but in a multi-gendered workplace why should it be only women that are profiting from your fictional constructs? It's clear that this 'emotional labor' is just a ploy to hide your blatantly sexist attitudes towards men, and in this paragraph you even state that anyone who works at minimum wage is under this emotional stress, so why can't men profit from your system? I would call you a hypocrite, but really you've now just become an ignorant asshole. Further proof of that is from your distorted history of capitalism that fails to mention that the system was based around the trading of commodities rather than the simple desire to exploit indigenous people. I'm not denying that the system of capitalism and imperialism hasn't selfishly exploited certain classes in the past, but to chastise a system that you reap the benefits from in your everyday life is another example of your innate hypocrisy.
Your argument just keeps getting broader with every question, yet still fails to explain why women deserve this money you want to force out of hard working men. You also haven't explained how giving money to minorities cures inequality. When I give money to homeless people it doesn't instantly make them equal does it? Just like your plan it's a temporary fix that completely ignores the notion of meritocracy. Your ideas of reversing the direction of capital are plainly suicidal, believing that obtaining money is a random process that in no way got to where it is for a logical reason. Contrary to your belief it is possible for women to succeed in a capitalist world, and this fact shows the scale of your generalisation and ignorance towards the individual needs of individual women. In short your moronic solutions are an inherently flawed method to get across your gender based propaganda, which is something you can only back up with 100% pure bullshit.
No comments:
Post a Comment