posted March 15, 2015 11:30 PM              

Pound for pound man. Job for job, experience for experience and job performance for job performance.
No certain age groups, children or no children, no certain jobs, etc.

Simply, job for job, all else being equal (job performance, location, etc).
NOT... isolated groups.

You said to look at the DOL and it disagrees with you. Sooooo....

posted March 15, 2015 11:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DeepFreeze:
Those prove my point.
They have stipulations built into them. Example: one said that "women who are 27 - 33 and have no children" That's taking a snapshot of a narrow group and saying, "see? There's no problems."

Pound for pound man. Job for job, experience for experience and job performance for job performance.
No certain age groups, children or no children, no certain jobs, etc.

Simply, job for job, all else being equal (job performance, location, etc).
NOT... isolated groups.

---

posted March 16, 2015 12:12 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DeepFreeze:
[B]

Pound for pound man. Job for job, experience for experience and job performance for job performance.
No certain age groups, children or no children, no certain jobs, etc.

Simply, job for job, all else being equal (job performance, location, etc).
NOT... isolated groups.

[B]

---

posted March 16, 2015 12:36 AM              

Many jobs are salary, which means, days off generally do not reduce pay. Things like that, that you're missing. Not everyone in the world works on hourly rates you know. Just to shoot down one of your factors as an example.

posted March 16, 2015 01:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BellaFenice:
We live in a world controlled by white, heterosexual men. Everyone else who does not meet this description is oppressed in one way or another.

---

There is also nationality, disability, age, IQ, physical appearance, and financial status. Just pointing out that white, heterosexual men can still be discriminated against for these reasons.

The prototype of someone who would be extremely unlikely to be oppressed would be: western, white, male, young but not too young (20-50 yrs), perceived as intelligent, physically and mentally healthy, attractive and financially well off.

posted March 16, 2015 01:48 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/ba392.pdf
www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2012-08-13/don-t-blame-discrimination-for -gender-wage-gap
http://reason.com/archives/2010/08/19/the-truth-about-the-pay-gap

---

Easier to say "yes m'lady"

posted March 16, 2015 01:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by teasel:
He's happily married, and women like him as a friend, as well. He's hardly a pushover.

---

posted March 16, 2015 02:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Padre35:

L..o...l

The most easily pushed over fella I've ever encountered online

---

I just came back here, because I remembered seeing something from AG about his responses to people, and how he would take things better if he didn't feel that people were talking down to him... but you guys do it, too. At least as far as I'm seeing.

posted March 16, 2015 02:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:

So basically I'm the bad guy right? [/B]

---

posted March 16, 2015 03:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odette:
There is also nationality, disability, age, IQ, physical appearance, and financial status. Just pointing out that white, heterosexual men can still be discriminated against for these reasons.

The prototype of someone who would be extremely unlikely to be oppressed would be: western, white, male, young but not too young (20-50 yrs), perceived as intelligent, physically and mentally healthy, attractive and financially well off.

:edit: Also - criminal record! I accidentally left out that factor.

---

Obviously I agree these (1st paragraph) can impact the perception of someone, but men still have more rights and power than women, same compared to minorities, and sexual orientation. 2nd paragraph: yes, that would be the most privileged group on the planet, but men as a whole still have advantageous privilege from a patriarchal-based society. I agree men face discrimination just as women do, but I'm not arguing the 'if' but rather 'how much.'. Take gender, race, and sexuality at a regional/national/global level instead of an individual level in context of my post (i.e.,comparing overall number of male and female CEOs). The examples of privilege I left on the OP point this out- hopefully this clarifies my OP.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is with the Xodian bashing on here by the way? He doesn't go out of his way to defend women every single time there is a disagreement on here. He doesn't even post that often either- giving an opinion on MGTOW doesn't make him a 'white knight' or 'yes dear,' or a 'pushed over' man. Its also an implicit form of trying to feminize someone as an insult.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are the feminists/liberals giving you proof that women are making less than their male peers when they have the same experience/education level, work the same amount of hours, and work at the same location under the same conditions?

AG, academia disagrees with your income statements too, not just the feminists/liberals. Stats in research journals aren't cherry picked or slanted, so there are sources out there are aren't biased to your concern. I already posted proven pay gap facts validated by Hannaramma and DeepFreeze, but here is an applied example.

Pay differences exist with physicians on equal status, as concluded by researchers at Duke University::

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1182859

posted March 16, 2015 10:02 AM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Padre35:
Sort of Odette, A) real problem is their social circle is a stone cold bore, great unsaid about women is boredom is deadly B)Career women are (imho) most likely to enjoy the 50 shades of grey types of men

Once again, because boredom.

Could write volumes on that subject just from what I've personally witnessed and the whys and the seemingly mind boggling to men, decisions women can make.

Dr over there...loser over there..let's go with the loser! He's fun!

Once heard it said, women want financial security..more importantly they want emotional security (in a relationship)

This is why poor AG is banging his head on the wall and wonder why!?? why!?!? The why is rather simple but requires..wait for it..personality..which requires lots and lots of self improvement unless one is just a natural

---

I'm not sure why you think being a doctor automatically makes a man a great catch. It doesn't. In my experience, the men who had four-year degrees or advanced degrees have all been unbearably snobby and condescending. I'm certainly no career woman but I want nothing to do with those types of men. One of them wasn't even done school yet and was already telling me that he 'couldn't get serious with me because I was "just" a secretary and thus going nowhere in life.' He was getting a bit ahead of himself as I hadn't even kissed the man at that point and was a bit put off by his BO!! I broke my own rule and against my own better judgment went out a few times with a suit-wearing guy who worked in upper management and he was so unimpressed with my having been laid-off and unemployed at the time that after 3 weeks of what could only be described as steady courtship, he flaked out on me not returning my texts for 11 days. I'm sure it was attributable to this because the last time I saw him his attitude was all, "You still haven't found a job?" Then he popped back in expecting there to be no problems, lol. I told him to never contact me again. I like men who are unpretentious and down-to-earth. I can't stand stuffy guys with their doctorates and their Masters degrees and honestly, with the recent ascent of assortative mating I really think they should just stick to women who also have high levels of postsecondary education; there are, after all, more of them than there are men. It's not so much about disliking wealthy men; I don't mind if a man makes a lot of money if he has made it as a carpenter or a tattoo artist or plumber. I'm not into rich white collar men and I think the feeling is mutual if my previous experiences with these blowhards are any indication.

posted March 16, 2015 06:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DeepFreeze:

---

posted March 17, 2015 07:05 AM              

If they don't possess all of those traits (plus being solvent, which isn't a character trait, but it's important I know I'm not dating a leech), they won't last.

posted March 17, 2015 07:26 PM            

1 - Interest in esoteric/metaphysical topics.
2 - Having a spiritual belief system that agrees with mine.
3 - Financial and emotional independence (so they don't leech on me).
4 - Intelligence/similar sense of humour.
5 - Health conscious (eating healthy and taking care of himself on a physical level).
6 - Dependability - Someone who both talks the talk and walks the walk.
7 - Confident/Good self-esteem, but not arrogant or c*cky.
8 - Respectful of myself, his mother and women in general.
9 - Open minded/No sexist or discriminatory, traditional views.
10 - Action oriented - passionate/positive and excited about his future.

posted March 18, 2015 01:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DeepFreeze:
Those prove my point.
They have stipulations built into them. Example: one said that "women who are 27 - 33 and have no children" That's taking a snapshot of a narrow group and saying, "see? There's no problems."

Pound for pound man. Job for job, experience for experience and job performance for job performance.
No certain age groups, children or no children, no certain jobs, etc.

Simply, job for job, all else being equal (job performance, location, etc).
NOT... isolated groups.

You said to look at the DOL and it disagrees with you. Sooooo....

Let's find a bunch of random studies.
You go out of your way to find things to fit YOUR views because I truly believe that you'd take a bullet to the head before admitting that you're wrong.

---

STEM, Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics.

These fields earn more, much much more, and have a outside of population numbers participation by men over women.

Oh, that would then mean, textural looks into stats would matter, hours worked, time missed from work etc in non STEM fields

posted March 18, 2015 01:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odette:
There is also nationality, disability, age, IQ, physical appearance, and financial status. Just pointing out that white, heterosexual men can still be discriminated against for these reasons.

The prototype of someone who would be extremely unlikely to be oppressed would be: western, white, male, young but not too young (20-50 yrs), perceived as intelligent, physically and mentally healthy, attractive and financially well off.

:edit: Also - criminal record! I accidentally left out that factor.

---

posted March 18, 2015 01:31 AM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odette:
^ I think mine have changed over time. But now they would be:

1 - Interest in esoteric/metaphysical topics.
2 - Having a spiritual belief system that agrees with mine.
3 - Financial and emotional independence (so they don't leech on me).
4 - Intelligence/similar sense of humour.
5 - Health conscious (eating healthy and taking care of himself on a physical level).
6 - Dependability - Someone who both talks the talk and walks the walk.
7 - Confident/Good self-esteem, but not arrogant or c*cky.
8 - Respectful of myself, his mother and women in general.
9 - Open minded/No sexist or discriminatory, traditional views.
10 - Action oriented - passionate/positive and excited about his future.

And yeah.. overall just someone I click with, who I can love the way he is - and who I also feel truly appreciates me as I am. I don't like relationships where people try to change each other.

---

posted March 18, 2015 01:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:
I'm not sure why you think being a doctor automatically makes a man a great catch. It doesn't. In my experience, the men who had four-year degrees or advanced degrees have all been unbearably snobby and condescending. I'm certainly no career woman but I want nothing to do with those types of men. One of them wasn't even done school yet and was already telling me that he 'couldn't get serious with me because I was "just" a secretary and thus going nowhere in life.' He was getting a bit ahead of himself as I hadn't even kissed the man at that point and was a bit put off by his BO!! I broke my own rule and against my own better judgment went out a few times with a suit-wearing guy who worked in upper management and he was so unimpressed with my having been laid-off and unemployed at the time that after 3 weeks of what could only be described as steady courtship, he flaked out on me not returning my texts for 11 days. I'm sure it was attributable to this because the last time I saw him his attitude was all, "You still haven't found a job?" Then he popped back in expecting there to be no problems, lol. I told him to never contact me again. I like men who are unpretentious and down-to-earth. I can't stand stuffy guys with their doctorates and their Masters degrees and honestly, with the recent ascent of assortative mating I really think they should just stick to women who also have high levels of postsecondary education; there are, after all, more of them than there are men. It's not so much about disliking wealthy men; I don't mind if a man makes a lot of money if he has made it as a carpenter or a tattoo artist or plumber. I'm not into rich white collar men and I think the feeling is mutual if my previous experiences with these blowhards are any indication.

On my first date with the guy I am currently seeing, he was ashamed to admit that he'd only done a few trades after high school and had never stepped foot in a college. I never told him this but in fact, I was relieved, not disappointed!

---

Which is the point, though not made clear, that I was alluding to in my snarky post.

Men are taught ACHIEVEMENT, is somehow a ticket into entitlement in relationships.

Mainly due to a host of societal manipulations that make sense on the surface, and benefit society...in reality those paradigms are not developing fully rounded men.

Cringeworthy watch on that is "Millionaire Matchmaker" or the rather odd thought that going overseas for relationships b/c "feminism" will cure seriously flawed men of their woes.

For myself smirk at it all as the product of Western (mostly, it happens in the East as well) societies where entitlement and not inherent virtue is the road to happiness

posted March 18, 2015 01:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by teasel:
I just came back here, because I remembered seeing something from AG about his responses to people, and how he would take things better if he didn't feel that people were talking down to him... but you guys do it, too. At least as far as I'm seeing.

I have encountered a lot of men on another board, who just seem to loathe women, and yet they want to date them, as well (of course, they generally want the hot young trophy, and they also want a return to the days when women weren't able to make life choices for themselves). When I see threads like this, it reminds me to check my own insecurities and choices, and how I might bring certain things on myself - and everything I see, certain men arguing how women are this and that - you're making it into a fight, where there doesn't need to be one. You're making us the enemy. You won't be able to connect with a woman - really connect - as long as you're looking at us through that specific lens.

---

Not all the "enemy" lol

Which has nothing to do with constantly "of course m'lday", to do so is the inverse of "women can do nothing right"