Busting feminist myths

[slimreaper]

Counter what? The empty air you are providing? You can't even read the posts coherently and keep mixing the responses. Nor you bothered to provide what this no fault divorce is in the legal terms.

Well you have gays speaking for you. That's one solution for you. You wouldn't have to deal with females at all. After all it's onle female who get raped or divorce in your book.



I was saying you have severe reading comprehension issue at this point:

A quote from that link you just provided:



They are not crying that women are running after career- they are crying that they can't afford to marry seeing they won't be able to provide for raising costs and the wife probably won't be contributing economically. These the the men who cannot afford to have a non working wife.

Seriously.. do you even read the link before posting? It didn't even mention the related suicides if any. You just zigzagged.



You are reading your own source wrong .. at this point I cannot even understand if you are trolling or really ignorant...



Lol typical. These are the guys who preach human right, animal rights, and what not to other countries and were crying over how Japanese hunt their dolphins in their waters.

i can't help you if you don't know what no fault divorce is, enlighten yourself. again you change the subject. argue the point

"He promised to expand day care offerings and promote flexible work arrangements so that women would no longer have to choose between work and childbearing, and he challenged businesses to promote women to senior management."

Idk what that means to you, but when the prime minister wants to make these changes, it's pretty clear why women aren't having babies.

see you did it again. stay of topic. Consistently diverting attention from the topic is a weak method.

White people are the only people who preach for rights? Who knew. I don't preach for anything, so please stop generalizing.

 

[Troyg39]

But just as me you can't provide data on the subject. I've narrowed the criteria to the wealthies countries in this global topic, because they have the most capital. Now I could go and look individuallt at the wealth of each individual country and the wealth it's women accrue, and divide it into 241 trillion seeing if I get close to 10%. Im not gonna do that though. I'm content with disagreeing and leaving it there

Ok now I see you aren't intelligent enough for this. You can't narrow the criteria on a topic that requires the world's population to just the population of a few countries because they control the most capital. That's leaving out the majority of data you need to do a global estimate. No data is needed to understand how foolish your efforts are. Only an education of at the very least a far better understanding of how statistics are affected than what you have.

And I'm glad you didn't do that division, as that's not how you would get the global amount of women's income to men. Go back to school. Please. If all you wanted to do was state your opinion on a subject, you could've just done that. You don't have to pretend to know what you're talking about

 

[slimreaper]

Ok now I see you aren't intelligent enough for this. You can't narrow the criteria on a topic that requires the world's population to just the population of a few countries because they control the most capital. That's leaving out the majority of data you need to do a global estimate. No data is needed to understand how foolish your efforts are. Only an education of at the very least a far better understanding of how statistics are affected than what you have.

And I'm glad you didn't do that division, as that's not how you would get the global amount of women's income to men. Go back to school. Please. If all you wanted to do was state your opinion on a subject, you could've just done that. You don't have to pretend to know what you're talking about

i know the total 241 trillion. It would just be easier to get that data from more developed countries. If I got the 10% without having to statistically delve into the more impoverished countries then that would make it easier.

Seriously dude, I'm not a moron you don't need to see all the data if you have the total and can find 10% of that total. But don't question my intelligence level because i've actually thought of a way to calculate this


I'm not gonna do this but this is how I would.

the study says that american women make up 5.4% of the global wealth. so I would find 5.4 percent of 241 trillion.

Once i got that number, I would subtract that number from the estimated 23 trillion america has.

the difference would be the men's wealth(I would do this based on the various total wealth of these countries). I could then use that to make a rough template for what women earn compared to men in western countries (Canada, UK,France,Germany,Australia Etc.) It wouldn't be completely accurate but we could get a ball park number. And my guess it's close to the ten percent needed without having to even go into the other less developed countries.


Seriously dude, don't question my intelligence

 

[Troyg39]

i know the total 241 trillion. It would just be easier to get that data from more developed countries. If I got the 10% without having to statistically delve into the more impoverished countries then that would make it easier.

Seriously dude, I'm not a moron you don't need to see all the data if you have the total and can find 10% of that total. But don't question my intelligence level because i've actually thought of a way to calculate this

No, you aren't a moron, you just don't the intellectual capacity to understand why what you are saying wouldn't yield even a remotely close estimate. And that is because you clearly do not understand how statistics are affected from a mathematical ruling sense, nor from this specific issue of global population to income. It's a matter of knowledge, not whether or not you are a moron.

I'm not gonna do this but this is how I would.

the study says that american women make up 5.4% of the global wealth. so I would find 5.4 percent of 241 trillion.

Once i got that number, I would subtract that number from the estimated 23 trillion america has.

the difference would be the men's wealth(I would do this based on the various total wealth of these countries). I could then use that to make a rough template for what women earn compared to men in western countries (Canada, UK,France,Germany,Australia Etc.) It wouldn't be completely accurate but we could get a ball park number. And my guess it's close to the ten percent needed without having to even go into the other less developed countries.


Seriously dude, don't question my intelligence

I understand perfectly well what you are saying. You know the total number of global dollars, you know most is controlled by the wealthier nations. So that is leading you to the conclusion that a model of women to men's income levels in those nations can give you a good estimate to what the global ratio would be. By taking out the percentage of women's income in those countries and using the global number you can get an estimate of what how much the underdeveloped countries would need to reach a global percentage rate of 10% for women.

What you either can not comprehend or are refusing to comprehend is that this is only possible if the underdeveloped country's women earn at the same rate compared to men as the developed country's women earn to their respective counterparts.

The fact of the matter is women in undeveloped countries do not earn the same percentage of income to men in those countries as women to men in developed countries. So if you are going to do a global estimate, you have to take that into consideration. That isn't a matter of opinion that you can disagree with, that is mathematical rule of statistics. If your sample only includes a few countries, your estimate can only be attributed to those few countries. You can not use it to account for anything outside of the scope of your sample. Your sample would have to include the scope of your estimate. Any math teacher would tell you that.

And since women earn less compared to men in undeveloped nations, while sharing a large part of the global population, including them would statistically lower the actual number, which would make your rough estimate so far off the mark that a 5th grade math teacher would laugh at you.

In fact, if you were to actually do the math you keep harping about, you would actually find that in developed countries women earn far more than 10% of total income to men already, so in order for you to get to the 10% globally, you'd have to have the underdeveloped countries make less (as I said), on average to bring the number down to 10%. That's how the data the article referenced got to that 10% mark, by including a global sample for a global estimate. Further proving my point.

When you decide to be bring up complex topics yet offer a lazy approach to support your belief system your intellectual capacity will be questioned. This is why people give you such a hard time up here. Seriously Slimereaper, what is the purpose of all this? Why do you continue to post these kinds of things if you are so ill prepared to discuss them? Why include data that you can't even grasp on your own in the first place? I thought you were against being a sheep? Seriously where does all of this come from?

 

[shelke]

Women and men are not biologically equal. The problem especially arises when a 'hitting' situation occurs. A woman lacks the biological strength to hit on the 'same strength' basis. it reminds me of that NFL incident recently where the man almost snapped her neck with a single punch. It was a terrible experience to even watch that.

This is also the issue when physically demanding jobs are brought into question, where men are naturally born to excel. I personally believe in humanity and justice. Equality doesn't exist and never will. Also, I find the concept of 'equal gender / racial / religious etc portrayal' in creative domains ****ing laughable.

 

[Avani]

What you either can not comprehend or are refusing to comprehend

I will go with refusing to comprehend. Just check how he has been twisting the arguments after bringing up Japanese birth rate- jumping to claims of suicide then asking me randomly why they are committing suicide and then going back to something else.. He is trolling and at this point I will say he is pretty good at it.

 

[Troyg39]

I will go with refusing to comprehend. Just check how he has been twisting the arguments after bringing up Japanese birth rate- jumping to claims of suicide then asking me randomly why they are committing suicide and then going back to something else.. He is trolling and at this point I will say he is pretty good at it.

Oh my god. I just finished looking at the exchanges between you two, you're right. It's worse than what I was dealing with from him. He has to be trolling at this point

 

[slimreaper]

No, you aren't a moron, you just don't the intellectual capacity to understand why what you are saying wouldn't yield even a remotely close estimate. And that is because you clearly do not understand how statistics are affected from a mathematical ruling sense, nor from this specific issue of global population to income. It's a matter of knowledge, not whether or not you are a moron.






I understand perfectly well what you are saying. You know the total number of global dollars, you know most is controlled by the wealthier nations. So that is leading you to the conclusion that a model of women to men's income levels in those nations can give you a good estimate to what the global ratio would be. By taking out the percentage of women's income in those countries and using the global number you can get an estimate of what how much the underdeveloped countries would need to reach a global percentage rate of 10% for women.

What you either can not comprehend or are refusing to comprehend is that this is only possible if the underdeveloped country's women earn at the same rate compared to men as the developed country's women earn to their respective counterparts.

The fact of the matter is women in undeveloped countries do not earn the same percentage of income to men in those countries as women to men in developed countries. So if you are going to do a global estimate, you have to take that into consideration. That isn't a matter of opinion that you can disagree with, that is mathematical rule of statistics. If your sample only includes a few countries, your estimate can only be attributed to those few countries. You can not use it to account for anything outside of the scope of your sample. Your sample would have to include the scope of your estimate. Any math teacher would tell you that.

And since women earn less compared to men in undeveloped nations, while sharing a large part of the global population, including them would statistically lower the actual number, which would make your rough estimate so far off the mark that a 5th grade math teacher would laugh at you.

In fact, if you were to actually do the math you keep harping about, you would actually find that in developed countries women earn far more than 10% of total income to men already, so in order for you to get to the 10% globally, you'd have to have the underdeveloped countries make less (as I said), on average to bring the number down to 10%. That's how the data the article referenced got to that 10% mark, by including a global sample for a global estimate. Further proving my point.

When you decide to be bring up complex topics yet offer a lazy approach to support your belief system your intellectual capacity will be questioned. This is why people give you such a hard time up here. Seriously Slimereaper, what is the purpose of all this? Why do you continue to post these kinds of things if you are so ill prepared to discuss them? Why include data that you can't even grasp on your own in the first place? I thought you were against being a sheep? Seriously where does all of this come from?

Are you serious dude. I specified western countries becauseu they have the roughly the same societal treatment as america for women.

This need to question my intelligence is astounding. I'm well aware that the income in less developed countries is a smaller percentage than for those of men. What is was asserting, was that using just western country's I believe I could muster fairly close to the 24 trillion magic number (10% of 241 trillion roughly) without even having to use the less developed countries.


Here's where you clearly misunderstood me... I'm well aware that women start to make less in less developed countries. My goal wasn't ever to try and compare them on the same template as the western women ( or even at all).

I haven't broken that data down, but if western women make 24 trillion or really close, then I can say they make 10% if they don't get close, then I will assume the fall off will be enough statistically to where they probably won't get it.

That being said I can't accurately( or even remotely closely) ascertain the degree in which that wealth gap increases.

In conclusion, I don't lack the intelligence to see the flaws in me trying to find out, nor am I assuming myself right or wrong, i'm just providing(the only data) that could even get us close to making an "educated guess".


As for my commentd with jean, she fails miserably at making her points, and instead shifts to attacking me as a person, and not my ideals. Perhaps you'd like to clarify. If you can prove me wrong, you did for the most part of the tax debate, but by all means try to prove me incorrect im my assertions with jean

 

[Sol Ku]

>No links backing claims
>Only muh feelings
>going straight to insults rather than simply debating
You guys are great, I take it most of you use tumblr judging by the lack of "sources" and majority of "Feels"
And wow Mods, I expect better.

 

[Avani]

>No links backing claims
>Only muh feelings
>going straight to insults rather than simply debating
You guys are great, I take it most of you use tumblr judging by the lack of "sources" and majority of "Feels"
And wow Mods, I expect better.

> Comes in a thread randomly.
> Completely misses the kind of links OP is giving as source and his jumbled line of argument and why people are responding the way they are.
> Adds nothing to the thread topic but posts anyway to bump a dead argument.
> Goes straight to insult and opinionated flames at everyone but the topic .
> the perfect internet user knows everyone must be crazy about Tumbler.
> Being a mod has made me expect less and less from the self righteous but shouldn't people who expect so much from everyone should behave themselves better?

 

[slimreaper]

> Comes in a thread randomly.
> Completely misses the kind of links OP is giving as source and his jumbled line of argument and why people are responding the way they are.
> Adds nothing to the thread topic but posts anyway to bump a dead argument.
> Goes straight to insult and opinionated flames at everyone but the topic .
> the perfect internet user knows everyone must be crazy about Tumbler.
> Being a mod has made me expect less and less from the self righteous but shouldn't people who expect so much from everyone should behave themselves better?

The link and points made were solid just saying

 

[Avani]

The link and points made were solid just saying

lol . Whatever. The person I replied to missed them anyway.

 

[CrimsonReaper]

There's no such thing as equality, i don't have anything against feminists but what they're aiming for is impossible to achieve.

 

[Karna]

There's no such thing as equality, i don't have anything against feminists but what they're aiming for is impossible to achieve.

Equal chance man, that's what these feminists be aiming for, if women then fail to keep up, so be it, they did their part.

 

[CrimsonReaper]

Equal chance man, that's what these feminists be aiming for, if women then fail to keep up, so be it, they did their part.

rape?? they keep talking how are we supposed to deal with it?? plus im pretty optimistic most of women get the same salaries as men.

 

[Karna]

rape?? they keep talking how are we supposed to deal with it?? plus im pretty optimistic most of women get the same salaries as men.

Ok I didn't even know rape was in the equation, I was just stating that women don't have to be equal to men just equal chances, stated it on a whim without even reading the thread, my bad.