The SEX ALLEGATIONS Megathread

[David Wooderson]

I'm not trying to provoke any reaction I'm participating in a discussion, I also think regardless of personal opinion we are all more alike than different.

I do not like the current state of contagious psychosis that is identity politics, it is turning people against each other and not doing any good, it's making people angry and not offering any solution other than more fascist policing and violence.

 

[Scrofula]

I do not like the current state of contagious psychosis that is identity politics, it is turning people against each other and not doing any good, it's making people angry and not offering any solution other than more fascist policing and violence.

Sure, which identity are we arguing about? Being a rapist? Cause this seems positive to me, and a solution IS being offered: trial and maybe imprisonment.

 

[cduggles]

Yeah it's illegal to do it based on sex. So you don't do it based on sex. You do it as part of a complex series of negotiations that just happen to result in women being paid less. Nothing wrong about that right?

I was responding to the sentence "Men and women are paid the same for the same for the same jobs." They aren't.

However it's also not illegal for all companies to pay people differently based on sex.

Existing law is quite flawed.

Quote to which I responded:

Well, it's illegal for companies to pay people differently for the same job based on sex. Men and women are paid the same for the same jobs.

What is this obsession with race?

By constantly getting on your high horse and signalling your virtue at every opportunity, you weaken your base's stance.

How tf do you take what I said having anything to do with race?

Says the guy who asked me if I was white...

 

[Blue_Phlame]

Don't mind me, I was just reading a law. If someone doesn't like being paid less for doing the same job, then they should complain.

Regardless, people will break the law. I might be breaking a law right now, try and stop me.

 

[swilow]

100% true qft

However people do lie and as a result it muddies the waters for all legitimate rape cases.

Hence, trials, evidence, etc. The fact people lie has nothing to do with whether a victim is responsible for being raped. People are solely responsible for their own actions. If someone is raped, it is the rapist who deserves blame, not the victim.

 

[Scrofula]

Lot of lawbreakers seem to find this board somehow.

If you note in your EEOC link, it explicitly exempts:

executive, administrative, or professional capacity (including any employee employed in the capacity of academic administrative personnel or teacher in elementary or secondary schools), or in the capacity of outside salesman

any employee employed by an establishment which is an amusement or recreational establishment, organized camp, or religious or non-profit educational conference center, if (A) i. . . a private entity engaged in providing services and facilities directly related to skiing) in a national park or a national forest, or on land in the National Wildlife Refuge System, . . .
(5) any employee employed in the catching, taking, propagating, harvesting, cultivating, or farming of any kind of fish, shellfish, crustacea, sponges, seaweeds, or other aquatic forms of animal and vegetable life, or in the first processing, canning or packing such marine products at sea as an incident to, or in conjunction with, such fishing operations, including the going to and returning from work and loading and unloading when performed by any such employee; or

(6) any employee employed in agriculture (. . . if such employee is principally engaged in the range production of livestock; or

(7) any employee to the extent that such employee is exempted by regulations, order, or certificate of the Secretary issued under section 214 [section 14] of this title; or

(8) any employee employed in connection with the publication of any weekly, semiweekly, or daily newspaper with a circulation of less than four thousand the major part of which circulation is within the county where published or counties contiguous thereto; or

(, , ,) any switchboard operator employed by an independently owned public telephone company which has not more than seven hundred and fifty stations; or

. . . ) any employee employed as a seaman on a vessel other than an American vessel; or

any employee employed on a casual basis in domestic service employment to provide babysitting services or any employee employed in domestic service employment to provide companionship services for individuals who (because of age or infirmity) are unable to care for themselves (as such terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the Secretary); or

( a criminal investigator who is paid availability pay under section 5545a of Title 5 [Law Enforcement Availability Pay Act of 1994]; or

any employee who is a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer, or other similarly skilled worker, whose primary duty is—

(A) the application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software, or system functional specifications;

(B) the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications;

(C) the design, documentation, testing, creation, or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or

(D) a combination of duties described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) the performance of which requires the same level of skills, and

who, in the case of an employee who is compensated on an hourly basis, is compensated at a rate of not less than $27.63 an hour.

***

(g) Certain employment in retail or service establishments, agriculture

 

[cduggles]

The Wikipedia Version of the flawed Equal Pay Act, amendments, and new legislation to close the wage gap between women and men

The Fair Pay Act, and what it does, and how it amends current law in easy to read Q&A format

The second one is a great read, imo.

 

[Blue_Phlame]

Lot of lawbreakers seem to find this board somehow.

If you note in your EEOC link, it explicitly exempts:

executive, administrative, or professional capacity (including any employee employed in the capacity of academic administrative personnel or teacher in elementary or secondary schools), or in the capacity of outside salesman

any employee employed by an establishment which is an amusement or recreational establishment, organized camp, or religious or non-profit educational conference center, if (A) i. . . a private entity engaged in providing services and facilities directly related to skiing) in a national park or a national forest, or on land in the National Wildlife Refuge System, . . .
(5) any employee employed in the catching, taking, propagating, harvesting, cultivating, or farming of any kind of fish, shellfish, crustacea, sponges, seaweeds, or other aquatic forms of animal and vegetable life, or in the first processing, canning or packing such marine products at sea as an incident to, or in conjunction with, such fishing operations, including the going to and returning from work and loading and unloading when performed by any such employee; or

(6) any employee employed in agriculture (. . . if such employee is principally engaged in the range production of livestock; or

(7) any employee to the extent that such employee is exempted by regulations, order, or certificate of the Secretary issued under section 214 [section 14] of this title; or

(8) any employee employed in connection with the publication of any weekly, semiweekly, or daily newspaper with a circulation of less than four thousand the major part of which circulation is within the county where published or counties contiguous thereto; or

(, , ,) any switchboard operator employed by an independently owned public telephone company which has not more than seven hundred and fifty stations; or

. . . ) any employee employed as a seaman on a vessel other than an American vessel; or

any employee employed on a casual basis in domestic service employment to provide babysitting services or any employee employed in domestic service employment to provide companionship services for individuals who (because of age or infirmity) are unable to care for themselves (as such terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the Secretary); or

( a criminal investigator who is paid availability pay under section 5545a of Title 5 [Law Enforcement Availability Pay Act of 1994]; or

any employee who is a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer, or other similarly skilled worker, whose primary duty is—

(A) the application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software, or system functional specifications;

(B) the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications;

(C) the design, documentation, testing, creation, or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or

(D) a combination of duties described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) the performance of which requires the same level of skills, and

who, in the case of an employee who is compensated on an hourly basis, is compensated at a rate of not less than $27.63 an hour.

***

(g) Certain employment in retail or service establishments, agriculture

My mistake. You're right, companies can legally pay men and women differently for the same job.

Isn't finding flaws and problems in everything fun? :D

 

[cduggles]

Maybe if you're a man in this scenario?

 

[-=SS=-]

i believe that nothing a woman wears ever makes it somehow ok under any circumstances ever to sexually assault or rape her. ever.

your true colors are starting to shine through...

Neither do I! Did imply that in my post you know:

Yes women should be allowed to wear what they like, it doesn't automatically make them a slut, and it doesn't make them fair game or anything like that.

My point wasn't that women choosing to dress in slutty clothing makes them legitimate targets for abuse of any kind, it was simply that wearing sexually provocative clothing is going to illicit a reaction in men. If I see a woman wearing a particular item of clothing that emphasizes her butt I can't help but notice it and react to it - to try and not react to it is insanity, you're hardwired for it. No crime was committed at any point there, but there was a reaction, it's natural, and we can't undo biological reality. That's all Iwas saying.

aside, why did you choose to change the spelling of my username? genuinely interested to understand.

Tried to spell it from memory without looking. Apologies.

Men, according to SS, can't stop themselves from raping if they see a thong. Wouldn't that indicate that men are nothing more than unthinking animals, and thus should be ranked last?

You know that's not what I said, and that was not the point I was making.

ss, do you believe a woman who does the same job as a man and does it equally well - let's assume a 'black box' where the results of the work are presented blind and there's no way you could know whether the work was done by a man or a woman e.g. preparation of an accurate balance sheet for a massive, fortune 500 company - should be paid the same for doing the same job? it is a simple enough question so a simple yes or now should do, thanks.

Yes. That was one of the original points of feminism and it has largely succeeded in rectifying that imbalance, which is a good thing, but that's not what modern feminism is trying to address at all. Being paid equally and having economic equality is one thing, but trying to balance out the social dynamic between men and women has become just an excuse for feminists to wrestle power for their own gain, largely at the expense of men and the wider social dynamics in society - in essence it's not even about equality, they just say it is.

I wonder what you [Mr. SS] consider "idiot feminists" warped agenda to be? How does it tie in with your overt racism? I'm scared to ask what you think about gays and gender non-conforming, but that's probably in your post history too.

They've become like any other large political force - their own power has largely become an autonomous form and separated from them as a group, and is pursuing its own agenda.. which is largely similar to other autonomous forces and based around the simple tenets of greed and power (self-sustaining principles). It will ruin them just as it ruins all other large political forces in the long run.

Why scared to ask? Because I might have an opinion that doesn't conform to the narrow liberal worldview you and others here perhaps subscribe to? I've written about homosexuality here a few times, so I'll keep it simple for you; I've had, have and will continue to have gay friends (men and women). I do not believe homosexuality is wrong or a sin, it's just not a healthy sexual orientation for the individual or wider society. As for gender non-conforming.. if you want to believe you're not what your biology is that's your choice, but you are mentally ill.

 

[CFC]

Harvey Weinstein: More women accuse Hollywood producer of rape

Two more women have accused Harvey Weinstein of raping them as the top Hollywood producer finds himself increasingly shunned by his peers.

British actress Lysette Anthony says he attacked her at her London home in the late 1980s while another, unidentified woman says she was raped in 1992.

The organisation behind the Oscars has voted to expel Weinstein and his own brother called him "sick and depraved".

Weinstein, 65, insists sexual relations he had were consensual.

Police in London are investigating an allegation against Weinstein who is also being investigated by police in New York.

More than two dozen women - among them actresses Angelina Jolie, Gwyneth Paltrow and Rose McGowan - have made a number of accusations against him including rape and sexual assault.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41626563


This dude's behaviour was mind-boggling. I guess once you've got away with it the first few times, your confidence grows and grows and you do it more and more frequently until it's pretty much a normal behaviour and an open secret.

I wonder if attention will shift back to Roman Polanski again after all this - surely unfinished business?

 

[Scrofula]

You know Mr. SS, your views that what a woman wears will force a reaction in men, possibly to her regret, sounds exactly like the criticism a lot of right-wing men use against Muslims as evidence of their backwardness.

 

[spacejunk]

^ that's what i was getting at with the comment david quoted above.
There is a distinct double-standard when people complain about men "raping our women" for racist/xenophobic reasons (ie black or muslim men - could cite countless examples of the latter posted in ce&p) but when a white man allegedly does the raping - do those people criticise the alleged rapist?
Generally not.
"Our women" only get protection from "them", not "us".
If one of "us" rapes her, she was probably asking for it - right fellas?

It's a repulsive thing to victim-blame, and it is a repulsive thing to exploit rape stats to push the anti-immigration line.
To do both concurrently is thoroughly hypocritical, to say the least.

 

[-=SS=-]

You know Mr. SS, your views that what a woman wears will force a reaction in men, possibly to her regret, sounds exactly like the criticism a lot of right-wing men use against Muslims as evidence of their backwardness.

Maybe I'm not writing clearly enough or you're misinterpreting what I'm writing or both, but I did not say that what women wears forces a reaction of sexual assault from men, or justifies any criminal act perpetrated towards a woman what so ever. I did underscore that point when replying to Alasdairm. I said that what a woman wears can illicit a reaction in men, namely sexual arousal. That's all. I didn't say that because they get aroused that justifies the committing of a criminal offense. It was more in relation to the point about our hyper-sexual culture and the subtle influences that shape our behaviour, in particular that of men. If more women wear more sexually arousing garments it's going to have an affect somewhere down the line because you're triggering a natural biological reaction in individuals, and that energy once summoned has to go somewhere.

That relates to the other point I was making about how women are not automatically off limits in culpability in the general sense. Stoking the fire is going to lead to more people getting burnt and you can't ignore that fact away. It might not seem that important, that 'cultural attitudes have shifted' and so forth, but our biological nature hasn't.

Comprende?

 

[Scrofula]

They've become like any other large political force - their own power has largely become an autonomous form and separated from them as a group, and is pursuing its own agenda.. which is largely similar to other autonomous forces and based around the simple tenets of greed and power (self-sustaining principles). It will ruin them just as it ruins all other large political forces in the long run.

Would you say white men's political power's "autonomous form" was ruined long ago or are we not quite there yet? Either way you'd agree that women's political power isn't quite at parity yet.

Why scared to ask? Because I might have an opinion that doesn't conform to the narrow liberal worldview you and others here perhaps subscribe to? I've written about homosexuality here a few times, so I'll keep it simple for you; I've had, have and will continue to have gay friends (men and women). I do not believe homosexuality is wrong or a sin, it's just not a healthy sexual orientation for the individual or wider society. As for gender non-conforming.. if you want to believe you're not what your biology is that's your choice, but you are mentally ill.

I guess I was scared of the inevitable "friend" line. You may be mistaking politeness for friendship. But then, probably not, since you have an ear for insincerity. If you believe a person's very sense of self is a mental illness and threat to the health of society, you don't call them a friend--that's English, not politics. You usually don't call someone you believe to be inherently inferior a friend either. Also in English, "liberal" is an antonym for "narrow in view". Look it up.

 

[Scrofula]

I did not say that what women wears forces a reaction of sexual assault from men, or justifies any criminal act [ . . .] I said that what a woman wears can illicit a reaction in men, namely sexual arousal. That's all. I didn't say that because they get aroused that justifies the committing of a criminal offense. It was more in relation to the point about our hyper-sexual culture and the subtle influences that shape our behaviour, in particular that of men. If more women wear more sexually arousing garments it's going to have an affect somewhere down the line because you're triggering a natural biological reaction in individuals, and that energy once summoned has to go somewhere.

That relates to the other point I was making about how women are not automatically off limits in culpability in the general sense. Stoking the fire is going to lead to more people getting burnt and you can't ignore that fact away. It might not seem that important, that 'cultural attitudes have shifted' and so forth, but our biological nature hasn't.

Comprende?

Wait, does women's clothing elicit behavior or not? Does it have an effect (down the road or whatever) by causing energy that has to go "somewhere," or not? And so, "in a general sense" women have culpability, in your opinion. They stoked the fire with their slutty outfit and can't ignore it's their fault when they get burnt. After all, it's men's nature to fuck what we like to look at.

Did I comprende? I admit it's confusing at first but you made yourself clear in the end I think, as usual.

FWIW: I really only meant the line about arousal. It's what right-wingers believe is so disgusting about Muslim men, that they cover their women in bed sheets because they can't trust each other enough not to get aroused, but you go right ahead and plow it further, don't let me stop you.

 

[JessFR]

You know SS. You can think things while not saying them to people you know won't approve. Either cause it might hurt them or it's rude or pointless or hateful. I'm doing it with what I'm saying to you right now.

For what it's worth, I can relate. I don't agree with almost anything you've said almost without exception, but still if I said everything I thought it would probably make enemies of everyone as well. Actually I'd bet if I said everything I thought even fewer would agree with me than with you. But I keep it to myself cause no good would come from saying it.

 

[-=SS=-]

Either way you'd agree that women's political power isn't quite at parity yet.

Why the need for it to be at parity? If women want to get into politics that's totally fine, that's their choice. At the end of the day if they do a good job they will succeed, if they don't they won't. There's no need for forced quotas or anything like that. If there is a disparity then why does that automatically mean something is wrong on the part of the system, or the 'patriarchy', rather than the women?

I guess I was scared of the inevitable "friend" line. You may be mistaking politeness for friendship. But then, probably not, since you have an ear for insincerity... You usually don't call someone you believe to be inherently inferior a friend either.

My first gay friend, who became a very close friend until his untimely death, didn't tell me for ages that he was gay (school days). Didn't really change our friendship at all. He was smart, respectful, and nice towards me, and me to him. At no point have I said anything about inferior, YOU said that and YOU are making something that isn't there. It's getting pretty boring you know, many of you here seem to have a serious problem with projecting stuff on those you don't agree with, because it's convenient and doesn't mean you have to actually think about how it's possible for someone like me who holds a certain view to still be a decent person.

You know SS. You can think things while not saying them to people you know won't approve. Either cause it might hurt them or it's rude or pointless or hateful. I'm doing it with what I'm saying to you right now.

You can hold views and opinions that differ wildly, and still be friends. It's not an issue until you make it an issue.

It's not a one way street you know. There's plenty of things my gay friends have said or implied from their standpoint that I find offensive in relation to my beliefs and perspective. But it didn't change our friendship, we still had common ground and shared experiences.. you know, what actually makes friendships. What kind of lame world do you live in where you want everyone to have the same bloody viewpoint, I don't get it. What are you afraid of?

There's plenty of liberal bigotry floating around these days. Again it's not a one way street. You only need to look to the Antifa crowd and the violence they have displayed towards those they don't agree with to see it. Left or right, black or white, it doesn't matter.

 

[JessFR]

Well first just cause you can doesn’t mean you should. But honestly yeah I’d be surprised if you can go around telling someone you think their deeply held beliefs are a mental illness or their being gay is unhealthy for society and have them be cool about it.

That really what you’re telling me?

 

[Scrofula]

Why the need for it to be at parity? If women want to get into politics that's totally fine, that's their choice. At the end of the day if they do a good job they will succeed, if they don't they won't. There's no need for forced quotas or anything like that. If there is a disparity then why does that automatically mean something is wrong on the part of the system, or the 'patriarchy', rather than the women?

I didn't say there was a need, you said it was inevitable, women's political power had escaped them and become autonomous. And like all political groups, it was hurtling toward it's doom. Men's power is still a few steps ahead I guess, you didn't really answer. But at some point parity will result--in the ruination of us all.

My first gay friend, who became a very close friend until his untimely death, didn't tell me for ages that he was gay (school days). Didn't really change our friendship at all. He was smart, respectful, and nice towards me, and me to him. At no point have I said anything about inferior, YOU said that and YOU are making something that isn't there. It's getting pretty boring you know, many of you here seem to have a serious problem with projecting stuff on those you don't agree with, because it's convenient and doesn't mean you have to actually think about how it's possible for someone like me who holds a certain view to still be a decent person.

You can hold views and opinions that differ wildly, and still be friends. It's not an issue until you make it an issue.

It's not a one way street you know. There's plenty of things my gay friends have said or implied from their standpoint that I find offensive in relation to my beliefs and perspective. But it didn't change our friendship, we still had common ground and shared experiences.. you know, what actually makes friendships. What kind of lame world do you live in where you want everyone to have the same bloody viewpoint, I don't get it. What are you afraid of?

There's plenty of liberal bigotry floating around these days. Again it's not a one way street. You only need to look to the Antifa crowd and the violence they have displayed towards those they don't agree with to see it. Left or right, black or white, it doesn't matter.

You have overtly stated that non-white races are inferior, and that women are unequal to men. You state that being gay is unhealthy for both the individual and society, and to adopt non-standard gender roles is a mental illness. Forgive me for just extending your overt claims on the former over to the latter; past performance doesn't always mean future returns, but your APR is well over market.

Two individuals with very different views can indeed be friends; that's not the case when the essence of one of them is held in contempt. Even if you're both nice and respectful to each other. To deny a person's identity, refuting their deeply pondered self-questioning, is not a "differing view," it's just arrogance and ignorance.