[aresh]

Well, I know that. But as I said, he puts up a good point.

[jon.kiparsky]

You know, there are many people in this world who can't ever concede that someone they disagree with has a point. I like people who aren't like that.

[jon.kiparsky]

Speaking of feminazi bait, I just noticed this post over at thedailywtf.com:

Quote

This is a true problem and a sad one for an employer like me. Unfortunately, hiring a female introduces significant risk to any organization. I have personally hired a female and invested significant resources in her only to have her get pregnant 2 months later (using our health benefits, of course). For the next 8 1/2 months we had to endure her mood swings and hold her hand as she attempted to do simple tasks while combatting her hormones. Then one day, she simply disappeared. It's certainly wasn't unexpected...but someone has to cover for her when she's on maternity leave. Once that was over, she decided she wanted to "stay home and raise her daughter", which means I'm out everything I invested in her. I've heard horror stories from colleagues of employees who would literally have a baby every year and take 6 weeks. So, your "valued employee" is taking 2 months off per year, and you have to get temp work to cover for them. Business isn't like that.

I know I'm going to be vilified for this: I'm not against family, and I'm not saying that women are inferior in any way. I'm just saying that ANYTIME you hire a woman, you are taking a huge risk. And that obviously translates into salary. Now, if I was allowed, I would require a female hire to sign an agreement so that if she got pregnant, or the monthly cycle was obvious to the co-workers and seriously affected her job performance--I could fire her. I've had to fire an alcoholic because his "recreational activities" seriously affected his job performance. It's not that I care about what he does on his own time, but when it comes into the workplace it's my problem.

So in one post, he claims that
- hiring any woman presents a risk
- women in the workforce engage in recreational pregnancy
- a woman's "monthly cycle" is basically like alcoholism
- equal protection of the law is basically an unacceptable cost of doing business

But hey, at least he's not a muslim.

[baavgai]

jon.kiparsky, on 02 October 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

If a whole nation of people, many whole nations of people, decide that half of the human population is actually less than human, and they all reach for one source to justify it, that source is fucked up. Maybe they're all misreading it

Excellent argument, but there is a little cart and horse going on here. Any belief system of significant size will support many perspectives, including contradictions and assumptions destined to be misapprehensions.

Societies tend to be patriarchal, simply because might makes right. Rationalizations come after. None of the YHVH trilogy supports gender equality in the least. While Islam is pretty blunt, Christianity is brutal as well. Then, of course, there's that whole throw Eve under the bus thing. These are religions of the Middle East. Which comes first, the religion or the society that birthed it.

In spite of Christianity's general condemnation of women, most European nations are don't grab a bible and start beating their wives with it.

The chick with the nice side boob, linked early in this thread, is Pakistani. While a Muslim country, Pakistan is far more culturally Indian sensibility than Arab. Their gender attitudes reflect tradition more than scripture. As, I believe, is the case in the Arab world.

If you want some bad countries to have ovaries in, many of them are African and not Muslim. While some in the Muslim world happily adopted FGM, it's an African cultural atrocity and spans religions.

Strange side note, all early religions are female based. When it becomes an obvious tool for political control, men get involved.

Misreading religion... Most Christians believe they go to heaven then they die, but the book don't say that. Buddha said not to worship him, but half the Buddhist sects deified him anyway. The God of the Jews is not monotheistic, rather He insists that none come "before" Him; Baal and ilk show up numerous times, often labeled "false" but sometimes just lesser.

[modi123_1]

In an interesting point - the 2nd Annual Slutwalk is happening this weekend. I try to participate more often than not, but I am apprehensive about if my participation would be welcomed.

Quote

SlutWalk Lincoln is holding their second annual SlutWalk. Last year the event drew over 200 participants.

They hope to exceed those numbers this year. The purpose of SlutWalk Lincoln is to raise awareness about sexual assault, victim blaming, change our current rape culture, and also to advocate for language change surrounding the word “slut”.
...
SlutWalk Lincoln was inspired by a group in Toronto that was organized as a result of comments publicly made by a Toronto police officer.

The officer indicated that one could protect oneself from sexual assault by not dressing like a “slut”.

This notion is also prevalent in American culture. SlutWalk hopes to combat this assumption. First, sexual assault is not the fault of the victim.

Secondly, the assumption that sexual assault is the victim’s fault makes things even worse by making survivors afraid to report the assault.

Finally, the word “slut” is used to shame those who enjoy sex (as well as people who are sex–workers) and to promote the mistaken view that their consent is either automatically implied or unnecessary.

Participants are not required to dress in any particular way, but can wear whatever they feel comfortable walking in.

cite

[BenignDesign]

jon.kiparsky, on 02 October 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

So in one post, he claims that
- hiring any woman presents a risk
- women in the workforce engage in recreational pregnancy
- a woman's "monthly cycle" is basically like alcoholism
- equal protection of the law is basically an unacceptable cost of doing business

I've had job interviews where I was asked illegal questions about children - if I have any, do I plan to have more... even so far as asking for contact information for the daycare the kids will be attending and whether or not I've had a tubal ligation - when I called them on it, the interview ended abruptly, I was thanked for my time and sent packing. When I called the company to complain about their interviewer, I was told they contracted an outside company to conduct their interviews and were not aware of the illegal line of questioning.

I do see the point though, as I've known women who have this 'I need a job with benefits because I want to have a baby' problem. I was rather the opposite... more 'Oh, shit, I have a baby... I need a job with benefits.' While I don't agree with it, I do see why some women game the system... and why some companies don't like hiring women because of it.

[jon.kiparsky]

modi123_1, on 02 October 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

In an interesting point - the 2nd Annual Slutwalk is happening this weekend. I try to participate more often than not, but I am apprehensive about if my participation would be welcomed.

I'd be pretty sure there's a place for you there. If you're not sure, you might find information here. But it looks like you could just turn up at the rally, try to avoid groping or otherwise molesting the sluts, and then follow along with the walk however seems appropriate.

[jon.kiparsky]

BenignDesign, on 02 October 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

When I called the company to complain about their interviewer, I was told they contracted an outside company to conduct their interviews and were not aware of the illegal line of questioning.

I'm sure they know nothing about it. Why it didn't interest them to know about it, on the other hand, is an open question, and probably indicates that it's best for all concerned that you didn't end up there.

Quote

I do see the point though, as I've known women who have this 'I need a job with benefits because I want to have a baby' problem. I was rather the opposite... more 'Oh, shit, I have a baby... I need a job with benefits.'

This is a great argument for socialized health care, honestly. Seems like it would be the best thing for employers as well as for employees.

Quote

While I don't agree with it, I do see why some women game the system... and why some companies don't like hiring women because of it.

I always wonder why it's called "gaming the system" when a working person uses the benefits they've paid for.

[BenignDesign]

I don't pay for my benefits. The company pays for them. I pay (a very small amount) for my kids' benefits, but I pay absolute $0 for mine.

[DarenR]

jon.kiparsky, on 02 October 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

actually as a general rule an emplyee pays a mere fraction into the benefits as compared to how much the employer pays. For instance, I worked at one company where the employees paid $200 a month for health insurance but i know for a fact (saw the records) that the company paid over 1200 per employee for the same allotted time period.
I also worked at another company where they paid 100% of the benefits. This company would have a great deal of angst if someone came in used them for benies and left rig

actually as a general rule an emplyee pays a mere fraction into the benefits as compared to how much the employer pays. For instance, I worked at one company where the employees paid $200 a month for health insurance but i know for a fact (saw the records) that the company paid over 1200 per employee for the same allotted time period.
I also worked at another company where they paid 100% of the benefits. This company would have a great deal of angst if someone came in used them for benies and left right away.

[jon.kiparsky]

Quote

I don't pay for my benefits. The company pays for them. I pay (a very small amount) for my kids' benefits, but I pay absolute $0 for mine.

Your health benefits are part of your compensation package, and as such, they're part of your pay.
That means that the services they buy you are services you're paying for - even if your employer is writing the check. You wouldn't say that your employer buys your groceries - even though it's their check that ultimately pays for them,

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 02 October 2012 - 12:59 PM

[strawhat89]

@baavgai Actually Pakistani religious extremists have declared a 'fatwa' on the chick with the side-boob and she has been banned from entering Pakistan. It may have been changed now though I seriously doubt it.

@Aresh Just because a few muslim girls walk around unopressed, it doesn't mean that all of them are. One of the worst things I have seen in India is a 2 year old muslim girl wearing a burka. If the parents of a 2 year old girl think they must protect her modesty, I shudder to think what kind of environment the child is growing up in.

Its not just Islam, I knew a guy who had a fight with a girl and then said something in the lines of 'If she, a girl, has that much pride, how much should I, being a man have?' As if being born male gives us some kind of special status.

[aresh]

Well, I don't know about that. Because where I live, there is no such thing. Why, in my school, mulsim girls wear extremely short pants. And I mean extremely.

This post has been edited by aresh: 03 October 2012 - 07:25 AM

[baavgai]

strawhat89, on 03 October 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

@baavgai Actually Pakistani religious extremists have declared a 'fatwa' on the chick with the side-boob and she has been banned from entering Pakistan. It may have been changed now though I seriously doubt it.

Who issued the fatwa? This matters a great deal, particularly if it's Sunni or Shia. What is its nature?

It's reasonably easy to find this:

Quote

The All India Muslim Tyohar Committee on Wednesday issued a fatwa against Pakistani actress Veena Malik and ex-communicated her for "objectionable" photos on net and for degrading the sacred institution of 'nikah' by signing a contract to choose a groom on a reality show.
-- http://articles.time...actor-swayamvar

Further digging turned up this:

Quote

A two-day meeting that started on December 20 discussed the issue and the entire Majlis-e-Shura including ulemas, clerics and heads of the community unanimously ex-communicated Malik on December 21, and issued a fatwa ordering a social boycott of the Pakistani actor. "No member of the community will entertain her from now onwards," zeenews.india.com quoted Khurram as saying. "She has made a laughing stock of the community. The social boycott became necessary to stop our community girls from following her example," Khurram added.
-- http://tribune.com.p...st-veena-malik/

Sounds like a good old fashioned shunning.

How does this affect the actor? I'm guessing she didn't have a whole lot to do with the kind of people who would shun her in the first place, but I could be wrong. I also don't know how unilateral such an edict is applied. The devout would follow, if they respect the body that issued the fatwa. Can she still get gigs in India or Pakistan?

I'm seriously curious about this, if any locals have any insight. Here in the States we often see the Muslim world as some kind of unified front, as opposed to a diverse collection of people like we are. Such thinking makes it easier to demonize entire populations and dispelling the myth helps.

Banned from entering Pakistan? Is there a source for this?

[strawhat89]

I'll need to do some digging on the banned from entering part. I seem to remember seeing that on the news a few months back. As to her getting gigs, she's a really bad actor. No amount of publicity will get her movies. She did do a few calendar shoots though.

People in India are really crazy when it comes to suing celebrities. An actor named Shilpa Shetty was sued because Richard Gere kissed her in a charity event. Another female cricket broadcaster was sued for wearing a saree which looked like the Indian flag. Idiots. As if there aren't enough cases in the civil courts.