A post for Olivia H and Luxury Daphne, and anyone else who cared to ask

[Wakeup]

[WTF]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

To recap, I think any man that thinks feminism is a dirty word is a chauvinist..

That is over simplistic don't you think?

I have clearly stated that I am the ACLU type. I like equality for all, not just some squeaky wheel class that does not seem to give two shits about other classes of folks that are discriminated against. That is where I lump most feminist. If they start demanding equal rights for all , then we are all on the same ship.

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I also think that that any man telling women to ignore misogynists and / or moralists is being over simplistic.

His simplistic point was that you were to LD what misogynists and / or moralists were to you.

Can't you understand that simple point? You were judging her like they judge you. He was pointing out irony and it went over your head....

[Guest050715-1]

Alas, yet another thing we disagree on. I think you are remarkably condescending and arrogant.
You wish to believe that, I doubt I will change your mind.
No you will not.

that contradicts a vast body of published works that are backed by hard data.
Actually, not anywhere near as many studies as you would think. Most of the work done has serious, SERIOUS flaws—mostly because they did not factor out issues of experience, age, etc.
In other words, everyone but you. Congrats, you obviously are the smartest guy in the room.

What you said Old-T is you held yourself out as an expert that is contracted by the government to evaluate gender based economic discrepancies. Then you go on to say, and particularly see what I changed to red above, it is quite clear that many – bolded no less – women actively apply sexual pressure on their supervisors.
Yes, I said that. “Many” is “More than an insignificant number”. It is not “Most”, or “All”, or “The Majority”.
Fucking our way to the top was one of three explanations to explain the crux of why you say why women got / get QUALITY experience which is your thesis. You later go on to say that of these many women that allegedly fucked their way to the top did so because they thought the other women were doing the same. Then you go on to say, well, actually women never admitted to fucking their boss for promotion, but rather only a few women said they fucked their boss for a promotion mostly it was other women saying that Suzie the Slut got promoted because she's a whore that fucked her boss. So, add all those whores up. Seems like a lot of fucking going on.

What you actually said to support my claim above:
First you say:

No, it is not. Their recollections may or may not have been slightly mistaken because of the time that passed, but the source was generally from the women themselves.

Then you back track and say:

Originally Posted by Old-T

it is quite clear that today many young career women actively push themselves sexually on higher-ups not because they feel pressured to do so by the bosses, but because they are afraid their female competitors are doing so and they don’t want to be at a disadvantage.

Then you go on to say, but I can’t find it and frankly I don’t have the time to re-read your shit, that the actual women fucking their way to the top didn’t so much tell you, but rather it was other people that said that’s why Suzie the Slut got promoted.

Wrong again. In my initial post I mentioned:
--Children (the mommy track)
--Grades/recognition in school
--Experience, both qualitative & quantitative
--Blue collar vs white collar jobs
--Advanced degrees
--Diversity of skills
--Race
--Religion
--What specific church they went to
--Being well known in the company
Yes however, if you go back and read what you said, these are only mitigating factors. The thesis of what you said is

Originally Posted by Old-T

The biggest one that some people always want to ignore is experience--quantity and QUALITY of the experience. ......................The one issue we have never been able to definitively answer is why certain people got the "good quality" initial experience to begin with. .......................

Below is my response to your initial post that I have quoted above.

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Old-T, I would have to see hard evidence to support your assertion that thirty to forty years ago (That's how far back you'd have to go to trace a 50 to 60 year old CEO's career.) the bias to promotion was to women.

To address "quality" experience I'd like to reference a recent NYT article about Harvard's Business School. The bias is so slanted towards males, that even the female profs are discriminated against by their grad students. Class participation is a significant portion of a student's grade. The bias Is so strong against female students, Harvard has inserted stenographers in every class to guarantee fair, sex based participation. So, I'm sorry, I'm not buying your "research" or statistical analysis.

Your response my questioning your reasons for saying gender bias was not the, to paraphrase you, the biggest reason that people want to ignore is QUALITY experience. You then go on to say you have no good way to quantify why people get promoted. I asked you to provide hard evidence to support your assentation’s that in the wayback there was no gender bias to promoting women. Where you still assert there is no gender bias in general, there was the Good Ole Boy Syndrome and the Mommy Syndrome that held women back, and then you threw in women fucking their way to the top as the three reasons to refute my questioning the validity of your assertion that there was no gender bias to promoting women. Promotion or QUALITY experience is your number one reason economic disparity between the sexes.

--I stated that younger women in the workforce have less issues about using sex as a tool (or at least admit to it more openly than the older women we interviewed). This is in synch with general statements in many venues about the overall sexual mores of the 25-35 y/o generation. I have not made a value judgment that such changed sexual views are good or bad morals.
Ya, you did. You just HAD to qualify that many of these whores were blackmailing their bosses and you were absolutely SHOCKED they had no idea that was a crime. Please.

I have no idea—what is your point? It looks like you are finally understanding that having sex because you THINK it will help your career is not the same as fining out it did.
I’ve said, and other women as well, have said this all along.

--I never stated that people got promotions/opportunities they didn’t deserve because of sex.
We’re all adults here. Yes you did.
Hell no I didn’t!
Yes you did, but let’s assume you didn’t. Then you are calling women dumb whores that throw themselves at men for promotions they are never going to get. Which would you rather be accused of calling women whores or dumb whores?

Originally Posted by Old-T

One of the hardest issues we had to adjudicate how to count was the use of sexual favors by women. Most the time it was very difficult to distinguish decades later in individual cases whether women were pressured into sex or whether they initiated the use of sex to get an advantage. We found some clear cases of both, but many were unclear. That is another area where a study in 2030 will likely show very different results—it is quite clear that today many young career women actively push themselves sexually on higher-ups not because they feel pressured to do so by the bosses, but because they are afraid their female competitors are doing so and they don’t want to be at a disadvantage. It is also a growing trend to have sex with the boss’s boss a few levels up, keep some incriminating evidence—anything from e-mails to used condoms—and then make implied threats of sexual harassment against the seniors. What surprised us was the number of young women who saw nothing wrong with it and were shocked to be told such things might be seen as blackmail by LE. They truly seemed not to have comprehended.

And really here is where I have to beg off. You’re absolutely a know it all bore. You have no idea what you are talking about. And further I do not believe you have any CREDIBLE studies let alone studies for the government. Good bye and good luck with all your woman hating sour grapes. The camel’s nose is under the tent and there’s nothing you, WTF or any other sexist can do about it. I absolutely cannot read anymore of your stupid shit.

Signed a former actual whore, not a dumb whore that though fucking her boss to get ahead would get her anything but fired......................... .......

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by WTF

That is over simplistic don't you think?

No, I don’t.

Originally Posted by WTF

I have clearly stated that I am the ACLU type.

I’ll up you. I’ve given thousands of dollars to the ACLU, The Houston Area Women's Shelter, Planned Parenthood and CAPS (An animal charity).

Originally Posted by WTF

I like equality for all, not just some squeaky wheel class that does not seem to give two shits about other classes of folks that are discriminated against. That is where I lump most feminist. If they start demanding equal rights for all , then we are all on the same ship.

You like equality for your endangered species causes. If you gave a shit about women and their causes, you wouldn’t do that thing you do. And you wouldn’t go out of your way to hate feminists. I have stated quite clearly I do not believe in separate but equal physical standards for men and women in physically demanding jobs. I do not believe in women in combat. And yes, I understand that means they don’t get combat pay which makes their pay in many if not most departments inferior. And I absolutely detest affirmative action for anyone: women, race related minorities, religious related minorities – no one. So in those veins, we are in absolute agreement.

Originally Posted by WTF

His simplistic point was that you were to LD what misogynists and / or moralists were to you.

I do not believe LD should have called that woman a whore. I do not believe she should have gotten her back up when VJ was offended. It’s just that simple. I don’t call women sluts and whores, and I do not think anyone, particularly other women, should call women whores or sluts. They are insightful words, which is exactly the reason I used them to counter Old-T in the preceding post(s) to counter his misogynistic in the guise of faux-intellectualism. You disagree. That’s fine. Understand tough that you come from a position of previously before unattainable privilege unless you were a nobleman.

Originally Posted by WTF

Can't you understand that simple point? You were judging her like they judge you.He was pointing out irony and it went over your head....

Can’t you understand mine? I’m not the mythical Christ. I judge LD for a lot of things. Calling other women whores is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by Wakeuр

And yet, here you are - right along with the rest of us Peaches.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

No, I don’t.

Of course you don't , you're a hypocrite and do not think the same simplistic rules that you apply to others, apply to you!

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

No, I don’t.

You like equality for your endangered species causes. If you gave a shit about women and their causes, you wouldn’t do that thing you do. .

And if you gave a shit about women radical feminist think you wouldn't have done that thing you did.

http://feministissues.com/

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

No, I don’t.
I’ll up you. I’ve given thousands of dollars to the ACLU, The Houston Area Women's Shelter, Planned Parenthood and CAPS (An animal charity).

Good for you...you forgot the NAACP!

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I judge LD for a lot of things. Calling other women whores is just the tip of the iceberg.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you

[Wakeup]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

And yet, here you are - right along with the rest of us Peaches.

Oh no...I'm Just Visiting...I'm not In Jail like y'all...

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by WTF

Of course you don't , you're a hypocrite and do not think the same simplistic rules that you apply to others, apply to you!

Obviously I disagree, and I obviously think you are the hypocrite.

Originally Posted by WTF

And if you gave a shit about women radical feminist think you wouldn't have done that thing you did

Originally Posted by WTF

.

http://feministissues.com

I see you took my meaning.

Personally, I feel prostitution is an honorable profession, and there is quite a bit of disagreement amongst feminists as to whether prostitution is degrading to women. Obviously I do not think it is.

Originally Posted by WTF

Good for you...

Yes, it is.

Originally Posted by WTF

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you

I'm not Christian. However you are one of the most judgmental, hypocritical individual I know. Stop obsessing over me Pet. Really, I'm not interested. It must be so disappointing to never live up to your own expectations and know you'll never get the kind attention you want from me.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

[SIZE=3]
I'm not Christian. However you are one of the most judgmental, hypocritical individual I know. .

All you have to do is look in the mirror if you want to see the most judgmental, hypocritical individual you know!

[Hot to Trot Daphne]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]No, I don’t.




Can’t you understand mine? I’m not the mythical Christ. I judge LD for a lot of things. Calling other women whores is just the tip of the iceberg.

good thing I don't give a shit what your whore ass thincks, or I'd be up shit`s creek, would I not?

[Old-T]

Olivia,

You seem to have great difficulty counting past three.

You also may want to sign up for a remedial reading class since you have a hard time following some rather simple arguments. I have first year interns who comprehended better.

You flat ignore logic if it doesn't support your preconceived conclusion.

And when faced with statements that challenge your safe little world you avoid them by lying.

There is obviously no reason to spend any more of my time trying to enlighten you. You are obviously enjoying being angry, ignorant, and close minded.

And yes, NOW you can point to THIS post and accurately accuse me of being arrogant and condescending. [See the difference?]

[Wakeup]

Originally Posted by Old-T

You are obviously enjoying being angry, ignorant, and close minded.

Wait..it seriously took you this long to figure that out? Hahahahahahahahahaha!

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by Wakeuр

Oh no...I'm Just Visiting...I'm not In Jail like y'all...

Originally Posted by Wakeuр

Wait..it seriously took you this long to figure that out? Hahahahahahahahahaha!

And you're still here, participating.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Olivia,

You seem to have great difficulty counting past three.

You also may want to sign up for a remedial reading class since you have a hard time following some rather simple arguments. I have first year interns who comprehended better.

You flat ignore logic if it doesn't support your preconceived conclusion.

And when faced with statements that challenge your safe little world you avoid them by lying.

There is obviously no reason to spend any more of my time trying to enlighten you. You are obviously enjoying being angry, ignorant, and close minded.

And yes, NOW you can point to THIS post and accurately accuse me of being arrogant and condescending. [See the difference?]

I think you are a braggart on the internets that has presented himself as some great thinker that backs down hard assed congresswomen, but yet you cannot remember what you posted one or two posts before them, have no evidence to support your claims of your great thinking and antidotal success and your claims are counter to any studies I've read or experiences I, and the other women who have posted in this thread, have had.

I think your "studies", if there were any, were cherry picked to mimic your attitudes towards women and women's role/s in society. My antidotal evidence, and that of the women that posted in this thread, don't agree with your antidotal evidence beyond the Mommy Track. So I think it is you who is rather unwilling to face the actual facts that there is a economic gender bias.

No, I see no point in trying to reason with someone that I have such a negative opinion of so you're right on at least one thing.

So if you don't mind, I'd like to leave it that I think you are not telling the truth about any studies or your grand representation of your faux intellectual findings before congress based on your admitted lack of data, admission that in twenty years your alleged studies and limited data will be over turned, your unwillingness to produce the "studies", you inability to keep your story straight and my own experiences as a woman in Corporate USA during the decades you claim to know so much about.

I assume I have made myself clear. In the event that I have not, we will follow the same rules I use with my Pet, and no, I don't want any more Pets. One is more than enough. I will ignore you unless you lie or twist my words............Funny, you and my Pet are remarkably alike..................I hope that pleases you both.

[Wakeup]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

And you're still here, participating.

Yep...one-liners baby...one-liners...