Incidentally, while we're talking about 'worth', why don't people who stay at home to care for children get paid a fair wage? Is it worth nothing to society to be nurturing the next generation?

Doubtdispelled wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Misandry.

Oh no it isn't. It's a consequence of getting married.

He should have gone his own way.

Stop blaming the victim, feminist!

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Misandry.

Oh no it isn't. It's a consequence of getting married.

He should have gone his own way.

Stop blaming the victim, feminist!

I'm not a feminist.

Blaming men for the treachery of women like that, you certainly are. Nazi!

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Blaming men for the treachery of women like that, you certainly are. Nazi!

What? Trying to get them to do the effing washing up is treachery now?

Whatever next?

Next thing we know, you'll be accusing me of not being able to run as fast as my next door neighbour.

So - just what is the worth of a woman, woman?

What is the merit?

The value?

Would you like me to link you to a man named Steve on YouTube who insists he shouldn't have to wash his arse in the shower and that women are hypocrites for being turned off by his skidmarks?

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Would you like me to link you to a man named Steve on YouTube who insists he shouldn't have to wash his arse in the shower and that women are hypocrites for being turned off by his skidmarks?

Don't talk to me about skidmarks.

I've probably washed more pairs of underpants (skidmarked or not) than you've had hot dinners, young lady.

Nazi indeed.

You are SUCH an Eichmann.

She agreed she's a Nazi!

(Mine is too. Runs a house like a corporation.)

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:She agreed she's a Nazi!

(Mine is too. Runs a house like a corporation.)

I so did not.

Show me where I agreed that I am a Nazi.

I thought that's what "Nazi indeed" meant, that you're a treacherous monster for expecting young gentlemen to do their own washing! I was using irony. I hope that came through. I thought we were having a mutually ironic back and forth. I don't think expecting anyone to wash their ass or do the damn dishes or even feed themselves is fascism. As previously stated though, I can link you to a man who considers women put off my skidmarks unacceptable.

My mom is a total Nazi though, god love her. She's even screams at us in German.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I thought that's what "Nazi indeed" meant

Ah, I see!

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:that you're a treacherous monster for expecting young gentlemen to do their own washing!

Oh no, quite the opposite. I didn't say I had that expectation. I would never let them near my washing machine. I'm not sure they even know where it is.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I thought we were having a mutually ironic back and forth.

So did I, but it just goes to show how easy it is to get crossed wires.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:She's even screams at us in German.

Gottverdammt, alles, was ich heute Abend sagen wird im Scherz gemeint.

Doubtdispelled wrote:Incidentally, while we're talking about 'worth', why don't people who stay at home to care for children get paid a fair wage? Is it worth nothing to society to be nurturing the next generation?

Surely, if the 'product' was children, and a society was prepared to pay a wage to someone who stayed home to look after children (at least up to school age), they should also pay it to people who have children and pay other people to look after them?

Or is the wage for staying home and looking after children 'not having to pay for childcare'?

Given that there are wide variations in performance, would there be some minimum standard people would have to reach to qualify for payment? How many other jobs can people effectively appoint themselves to?

tolman wrote:they should also pay it to people who have children and pay other people to look after them?

They already do, Tolman, at least here in the UK. But that's only for working parents who use childcare.

tolman wrote:Or is the wage for staying home and looking after children 'not having to pay for childcare'?

Yes, that's what I'm pondering.

And yes, I was thinking of at least up until school age, when the pressure lessens and there is a break during the day.

tolman wrote:Given that there are wide variations in performance, would there be some minimum standard people would have to reach to qualify for payment? How many other jobs can people effectively appoint themselves to?

Ah well, now you're attempting to get into the nitty-gritty of the subject. I'm not sure that such an approach is ever going to be viable, given the lack of appreciation of a carer's worth at the present time.

There has been much talk of value and merit in this thread, and all I was doing was wondering how much I would have been paid, how much I would have been worth, in other words, if such work was ever valued and paid commensurately.

And trying to steer the thread away from endless speculation about female athletes and their attributes and merit. That too.

Enough of this derail. Time to get back on topic. Why is it that women feel compelled to shave their body parts, and are also slutty for appearing in pornography it is okay to use irony to parody to shoddy attacks on feminists?

I must say, the IQ (Irony Quotient) of this thread is dropping. Plummeting, in fact. It shows every indication of bottoming out in the depths of cheap sarcasm and snarky bickering. Should have expected it, what with all the women nattering on.

Sendraks wrote:

TMB wrote:Perhaps you can explain this to us all how this works, and sexism regardless, if it is an untrue statement?

Please don't delude yourself into thinking that anyone else requires an explanation here beyond yourself.

You clearly have a very negative view of women and have constructed a worldview for yourself that does not permit them to be viewed as anything but.

Instead of going off track and resorting to personal insults, why don't you just answer the questions I pose. Your approach tells me that you are unable to respond to my points, but because you feel exposed if you don't respond, you give an emotional response. I can understand how face o face interaction in the real world creates emotional tension, but on a website we should be able to attack the argument, not the person.

Hilarious. Your entire output is based on emotions. Even when faced with detailed responses, you can't stop yourself from making bitchy comments. You sometimes even return to threads where you are being asked over and over again for evidence for your assertions, solely to post content-free jibes which do nothing but draw attention to your failure to provide the requested evidence. Your posts in fact never miss an opportunity to personalise and mischaracterise. It's not out-with the realms of possibility that someone other than myself has noticed this and no longer thinks it a good use of their time to continue providing in-depth responses to your regurgitated nonsense. You do not speak for anyone here but yourself, and do not get to lump other participants together as waiting for this explanation you apparently want. There's just you. I've little doubt that you will now fall over yourself to come back with some emotion-based snipe.