All male Fox News panel freak out over the numbers of women providing the main income in households

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I have half a mind to send them the links on how they have now successfully fertilized an egg using only female cells making men no longer necessary for sperm.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/men-no-longer-necessary-for-sperm-production/750

If their reaction to women working is that bad, can you you imagine their reaction to reading that?! HAHAHAHAHA!

But without men... who would do all the dangerous work in the world? =D

(Not to mention the inventing etc. ZINNGGG!!111!)

But anyway, how come statistics like this never seem to provide justification for society to no longer feel pressured into patronizing and pitying women? It's hard to treat people as equals when people are literally called out as sexists for treating women the same as they treat men.

I mean it's like... how come we so often seem to get told almost in the same breath... that women are still being discriminated against and are disadvantaged in all sorts of ways... and then some statistic comes up that makes women look good and suggests they're outperforming men? (Which would be hardly surprising either when the success of women at virtually any cost seems to be a priority these days)

DID you really just say that? Women are not afraid to do dangerous things, have an extremely high pain tolerance to endure childbirth, and have been great inventors as well. In fact, the BIGGEST reason why women were not mentioned for the longest time in regards to inventions was it was forbidden by MEN. They Also refused to allow women to have a patent for their inventions, and women had to get patents for their inventions under their husbands name and give him credit for their work. Women were prevented from receiving credit for their own work! You really are not setting out on a good foot here.

http://inventors.about.com/od/womeninventors/a/How-Many-Women-Inventors-Are-There.htm
http://www.women-inventors.com/

 

[AgedGrunt]

If anyone is redefining anything, it's you saying that progress is more single mothers on government assistance living just above the poverty line. A breadwinner supports their family, not a combination of their minimum wage job and Uncle Sam.

A breadwinner financially supports the family, yes, but just a quick comment on families. The balance between family and career is a big problem for many, which is why we can't afford to ignore single-parent households (which naturally leads into why gay marriage is a good thing, as marriage supports the strongest family unit). This is a substantial problem as it's detrimental for children to grow up with one parent, as hard as it is on the parents.

Of course, how the law goes about marriage is where things get more complicated. I don't believe something is a civil or human right until it is defined at the highest level and that is what people should be working toward.

Spoiler: @NameIsRobertPaulson

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't expect this to go anywhere. There will be plenty more conjecture and unsupported claims before the mods wake up and realize this whole thread should have been deported to the R&P dungeon a while ago.

For this exact reason, actually.

I think you missed the video links, as well, and just don't like sources (responses I get too often do not include them). Source material is not conjecture.

Politifact has won the pulitzer prize for reporting, and as of 2012, has reported almost entirely evenly on Democrats and Republicans (50.7% GOP, 49.1 Democrat). I would say that makes them more trustworthy than either MSNBC or Fox News.

That's a pretty low bar, but I will agree they're above the worst on television. But they're no golden egg, and I simply provided examples that show criticism isn't exclusive.

Spoiler: @Zachary Amaranth

Your clip, like everyone else's online is heavily edited fown to a soundbite and a handwritten sign. You offer no context and no actual grounds for verification. This in itself seems like right wing slant, especially since primary sources are Newsbusters and The Blaze.

Now, you spammed a lot of links at once, and inundating people with that much information is generally a tactic to confuse or deter rather than to persuasively argue. Shall I just assume your other links are similarly cut down and without context and move on?

What in the heck? I guess seeing is not believing (there were videos. lots and lots of video recordings from MSNBC, for anyone who wondered).

Quick recap: this originated when, lamenting the direction of the thread, I made an off-handed remark about a network, which was quickly challenged. I responded. There was no "tactic" here, it's all there for anyone who wants it. If you don't believe someone, research. Don't barge in and discredit source material with assumed distortions.

 

[Something Amyss]

If anyone is redefining anything, it's you saying that progress is more single mothers on government assistance living just above the poverty line. A breadwinner supports their family, not a combination of their minimum wage job and Uncle Sam.

Being just above the poverty line doesn't insure help from Uncle Sam. So now not only are you redefning words, you're tossing out negative supposition to try and reinforce it.

 

[Something Amyss]

(there were videos. lots and lots of video recordings from MSNBC, for anyone who wondered).

Something I actually referenced, so there was no need to point that out except intellectual dishonesty. I asked you specifically ABOUT those clips based on the one I watched out of curiosity before seeing it didn't offer anything of substance and guessing further inquiry was a waste of time.

If you don't believe someone, research.

I did, and I referenced that too. Did you not read what you posted or is this more dishonesty?

Perhaps you should take advice from this guy:

Don't barge in and discredit source material with assumed distortions.

Also, don't post context-free clips with no substance as "proof" if you want to be taken seriously.

It seems that this IS the level of integrity I should expect from these clips, then. That's all I really wanted to know.

 

[Something Amyss]

She is and she isn't. Out of all the Fox news pundits I hate her the least. She tends to spout the same bullshit and most of the Fox News personalities, and like them it is all an act. At times she breaks characters, though, and when that happens it is hilarious.

This is one of those times. A Fox news reporter would NEVER cite research saying homosexual couples are just as good at raising children than heterosexual couples, and yet here she is. I remember when Barack Obama was reelected I flipped over to Fox out of a morbid sense of curiosity and even though it was obvious it was going to happen some guy was flapping his jaw about how it was too close to call yet. She turned to him and basically told him to stop being an ass. It was one of the funniest things I've seen and I wish I could find that video.

Was it Karl Rove's freak out? I'm betting so, though I don't specifically remember if Megyn Kelly was involved there.

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

The first guy said 4 out of 10 households rather then just reducing it tow 2 out of 5. Is basic math that hard? Why is that the thing I notice the most?

Because 10 divided by 2 doesn't equal 5... that's just what those elitist scientists want you to think so you'll surrender your guns and start having abortions-on-toast for dinner. I know because Fox News told me...

 

[AgedGrunt]

Something I actually referenced, so there was no need to point that out except intellectual dishonesty. I asked you specifically ABOUT those clips based on the one I watched out of curiosity before seeing it didn't offer anything of substance and guessing further inquiry was a waste of time.

I'm sorry, but you actually outright dismissed everything, attacked my credibility and honestly don't sound like you even want to be convinced of anything. If you go back you can find the very simple context of what I was replying to. In as much as we are wasting our time and straying far off-topic, we're done here, because we're here to look at the issue, not supposed to pretend like we're on Fox News.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm sorry, but you actually outright dismissed everything,

Actually, I looked at one clip and wondered if the rest were more of the same. I didn't dismiss everything until after you responded with a super defensive reply that failed to address anything and instead tried to doctor my own stance as you are doing again.

attacked my credibility

I commented that this was a common obfuscation tactic. However, you have since then certainly damaged your own credibility.

and honestly don't sound like you even want to be convinced of anything.

I DON'T want to be coonvinced of anything. I want the truth. Selectively edited clips with no actual background or substance won't show me that. I asked if it was all you had to offer. I'm only guessing it's true because you have done nothing but try and impugn me and shift the goalposts since.

If you go back you can find the very simple context of what I was replying to.

Which does nothing to address my questions or concerns.

In as much as we are wasting our time and straying far off-topic, we're done here, because we're here to look at the issue, not supposed to pretend like we're on Fox News.

It seems like we were done here the moment you chose to behave in a deceptive fashion.

Honestly, I would welcome actual discussion, but it seems like you were never interested in that. I'm betting my initial assessment was correct, that your clips were intentionally misleading and posted in such number to obfuscate the fact. Had you bothered to spend five seconds trying to convince me otherwise, I would have given another shot TBH. The reaction is pretty telling, though.

 

[O maestre]

I have half a mind to send them the links on how they have now successfully fertilized an egg using only female cells making men no longer necessary for sperm.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/men-no-longer-necessary-for-sperm-production/750

If their reaction to women working is that bad, can you you imagine their reaction to reading that?! HAHAHAHAHA!

But without men... who would do all the dangerous work in the world? =D

(Not to mention the inventing etc. ZINNGGG!!111!)

But anyway, how come statistics like this never seem to provide justification for society to no longer feel pressured into patronizing and pitying women? It's hard to treat people as equals when people are literally called out as sexists for treating women the same as they treat men.

I mean it's like... how come we so often seem to get told almost in the same breath... that women are still being discriminated against and are disadvantaged in all sorts of ways... and then some statistic comes up that makes women look good and suggests they're outperforming men? (Which would be hardly surprising either when the success of women at virtually any cost seems to be a priority these days)

DID you really just say that? Women are not afraid to do dangerous things, have an extremely high pain tolerance to endure childbirth, and have been great inventors as well. In fact, the BIGGEST reason why women were not mentioned for the longest time in regards to inventions was it was forbidden by MEN. They Also refused to allow women to have a patent for their inventions, and women had to get patents for their inventions under their husbands name and give him credit for their work. Women were prevented from receiving credit for their own work! You really are not setting out on a good foot here.

http://inventors.about.com/od/womeninventors/a/How-Many-Women-Inventors-Are-There.htm
http://www.women-inventors.com/

As immature as he sounds, you only responded to his comment in the parenthesis, the rest of his post actually has some discussion value, if his statement about women statistically outperforming men is factual, then do the claims of gross disadvantage become invalidated? it cannot really be both. Your very own statements seem to marginalise half of the populace, and by that I mean men.

There is a discussion to be had in that regard, are the several examples and statistics about female competence used to illustrate a general superiority, or even that equality has been achieved or are they utilized to justify further shift in the "gender role balance" presumably in the face of pragmatists or rather to appeal to other peoples sense of pragmatism.

In the case of the latter, I think there are few people in the modern (first)world that would argue that the majority of tasks and jobs are gender exclusive, all of which accumulate too men more than any other time in history needing to re-evaluate what it means to be man. I think that is these guys are so out of touch and archaic, the definition of man in today's world has become unrecognisable to what a man was suppose to be in the 1950's. However like I said some of the confusion is justified, as it has in my opinion become very difficult to define what a man role is in modern society.

Oh and patents have done a lot more harm to human advancement than just disenfranchise women, patents are thing that i hope will be eliminated in humanities future. Evil and nasty stuff that is.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I have half a mind to send them the links on how they have now successfully fertilized an egg using only female cells making men no longer necessary for sperm.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/men-no-longer-necessary-for-sperm-production/750

If their reaction to women working is that bad, can you you imagine their reaction to reading that?! HAHAHAHAHA!

But without men... who would do all the dangerous work in the world? =D

(Not to mention the inventing etc. ZINNGGG!!111!)

But anyway, how come statistics like this never seem to provide justification for society to no longer feel pressured into patronizing and pitying women? It's hard to treat people as equals when people are literally called out as sexists for treating women the same as they treat men.

I mean it's like... how come we so often seem to get told almost in the same breath... that women are still being discriminated against and are disadvantaged in all sorts of ways... and then some statistic comes up that makes women look good and suggests they're outperforming men? (Which would be hardly surprising either when the success of women at virtually any cost seems to be a priority these days)

DID you really just say that? Women are not afraid to do dangerous things, have an extremely high pain tolerance to endure childbirth, and have been great inventors as well. In fact, the BIGGEST reason why women were not mentioned for the longest time in regards to inventions was it was forbidden by MEN. They Also refused to allow women to have a patent for their inventions, and women had to get patents for their inventions under their husbands name and give him credit for their work. Women were prevented from receiving credit for their own work! You really are not setting out on a good foot here.

http://inventors.about.com/od/womeninventors/a/How-Many-Women-Inventors-Are-There.htm
http://www.women-inventors.com/

As immature as he sounds, you only responded to his comment in the parenthesis, the rest of his post actually has some discussion value, if his statement about women statistically outperforming men is factual, then do the claims of gross disadvantage become invalidated? it cannot really be both. Your very own statements seem to marginalise half of the populace, and by that I mean men.

There is a discussion to be had in that regard, are the several examples and statistics about female competence used to illustrate a general superiority, or even that equality has been achieved or are they utilized to justify further shift in the "gender role balance" presumably in the face of pragmatists or rather to appeal to other peoples sense of pragmatism.

In the case of the latter, I think there are few people in the modern (first)world that would argue that the majority of tasks and jobs are gender exclusive, all of which accumulate too men more than any other time in history needing to re-evaluate what it means to be man. I think that is these guys are so out of touch and archaic, the definition of man in today's world has become unrecognisable to what a man was suppose to be in the 1950's. However like I said some of the confusion is justified, as it has in my opinion become very difficult to define what a man role is in modern society.

Oh and patents have done a lot more harm to human advancement than just disenfranchise women, patents are thing that i hope will be eliminated in humanities future. Evil and nasty stuff that is.

I was addressing the first portion of his post, and did so saying " you are not really setting out on a good foot here" addressing that is no was to start a conversation. If you want people to listen to the rest of what you are saying, you do not start out by making clearly false and biased statements.

As for " equality" being achieved, having 4 out of 10 households is not even half. That is still not equal, yet these guys are in an uproar. Equality still has a ways to go, you do not make up for one group owning the majority of EVERYTHING easily, women only own 1% of the worlds property. Does that sound like equality? Women are still being paid less than men even if they ARE outperforming them.

I know I am primarily focusing on women's issues here, because yes, there is still much work to be done, but I also
do recognize the problems men are facing with the changing dynamic of relationships and the workforce, it is not my intention to marginalize them. I am primarily addressing women's issues because I am a woman, however, it does not mean that because I am discussing women's issues that I think men's issues are any less important. I think they are both important, although I am more familiar with the issues facing women, because I have had to deal with them myself, so I have more actual input in regards to women's issues. That should not be taken as " I don't care about men's problems" it is just I have not had to experience these things first hand, so I would assume a man who has would have more to say on that issue and would give him the floor to discuss it. If I have something to add to the discussion I will.

I also agree with your position on patents, and would like to add copy write to that as well. These things add to the worlds income inequality and allow for the funneling of wealth world wide into the hands of the few.
The truth is, the majority of MEN and women do not have the wealth. It is just a few men.

 

[TheScientificIssole]

I think we've gotten pretty far off topic here, but there are still a few points I'd like to make.

First: Libertarian. The US Libertarian party misuses the shit out of the word (well, it's mostly their various 501c3 supporters, but those are the people they answer to in the end in any case). It's the opposite of authoritarian, nothing more. A belief in the value of personal liberty over control. One can not be libertarian and be for a market where money and power all reside at the top. We have the choice between an authoritarian government or authoritarian corporations at this point in time. Hamstringing the government just consolidates power in the other side of the arena. That's not libertarian, it's just capitalist extremism. Which is how most people in the US define "Libertarian" at this point... though to be honest, that redefinition happened when I was in elementary school.

Medical care: if socializing it to the level of single-payer healthcare (which still leaves plenty of competition in drug manufacture and among doctors, it just removes competition between hospitals and keeps them honest) doesn't work, why are Canadians, Germans and Japanese people doing so well on that front while in the US the bills for having a kid are around the same price as a new car?
(hint: our biggest export is the dollar, usually to tax havens)

I disagree with your idea of a libertarian, the individual should have control over their money, as people basic freedoms are "life, liberty, and property". I believe a basic freedom is taken away in a socialist environment, as someone would lose the freedom of their property. So we are at a disagreement, of what freedom is at a basic level.
Socializing medical care wouldn't work in the US, or at least not now. There are simply too many people in the US: The US has 9 times more people than Canada, near 5 times more than Germany, and near 4 times more than japan, and the country is on an economic decline where many people are poor. Socialize medical care doesn't fit anywhere in there. That and it would require a tax increase and a increase of regulation on a federal level. Also, if it doesn't work out well, which I don't think it will, the government's only solution would be to throw more money taxpayer at it. Enough money has been used on it already, money that may I say doesn't exist, as the US government has negative money. The US government is in debt.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

And that there is the rub. We have a full half of our government bought, paid for, and whored out by corporations and the retardedly rich. Because it's so hard to justify throwing everyone but their wealthy overlords under the bus, they use fear and religion to get the people they fully and blatantly want to f^&k over to vote for them. And they've been doing it so long and become so good at it they've got many of us standing up in defense of said overlords! We now live in a culture of corporate worship where "They're in the business of making money" is a tarp their defenders throw over any and all douche baggery imaginable. Even when that behavior leads to accidents and even explosions that kill numerous workers. Which happened in Waco Texas when a fertilizer plant, who's been dodging inspections for years in the name of "business of making money", exploded and killed all those people.

Whoa there. Are you suggesting we dial capitalism from its current 110% down to a more humane and sustainable 95? Because that, my friend, makes you a communist, a socialist, a fascist, a sexual deviant, a double secret muslim, and (worst of all) a soccer enthusiast.

 

[loc978]

I think we've gotten pretty far off topic here, but there are still a few points I'd like to make.

First: Libertarian. The US Libertarian party misuses the shit out of the word (well, it's mostly their various 501c3 supporters, but those are the people they answer to in the end in any case). It's the opposite of authoritarian, nothing more. A belief in the value of personal liberty over control. One can not be libertarian and be for a market where money and power all reside at the top. We have the choice between an authoritarian government or authoritarian corporations at this point in time. Hamstringing the government just consolidates power in the other side of the arena. That's not libertarian, it's just capitalist extremism. Which is how most people in the US define "Libertarian" at this point... though to be honest, that redefinition happened when I was in elementary school.

Medical care: if socializing it to the level of single-payer healthcare (which still leaves plenty of competition in drug manufacture and among doctors, it just removes competition between hospitals and keeps them honest) doesn't work, why are Canadians, Germans and Japanese people doing so well on that front while in the US the bills for having a kid are around the same price as a new car?
(hint: our biggest export is the dollar, usually to tax havens)

I disagree with your idea of a libertarian, the individual should have control over their money, as people basic freedoms are "life, liberty, and property". I believe a basic freedom is taken away in a socialist environment, as someone would lose the freedom of their property. So we are at a disagreement, of what freedom is at a basic level.
Socializing medical care wouldn't work in the US, or at least not now. There are simply too many people in the US: The US has 9 times more people than Canada, near 5 times more than Germany, and near 4 times more than japan, and the country is on an economic decline where many people are poor. Socialize medical care doesn't fit anywhere in there. That and it would require a tax increase and a increase of regulation on a federal level. Also, if it doesn't work out well, which I don't think it will, the government's only solution would be to throw more money taxpayer at it. Enough money has been used on it already, money that may I say doesn't exist, as the US government has negative money. The US government is in debt.

I guess we can agree to disagree on the libertarian bit. I'm going with the oldest etymology from 1789, you're going with the newest from 1971 (both being in opposition to the libertarian communist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_communism] frenchies from 1857).
Just sayin', there are a lot of definitions for the word. I just think mine's right because it was first... but language is an ever-evolving thing, so I'm probably wrong.

As for paying our way out of debt, socializing medicine, et cetera... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven I recommend you read that. All of it. If we were to repatriate taxes that should be owed by multinational corporations, it would pay off both of our unpaid-for wars and put us back on even footing with China. If we were to disallow the use of tax havens by our multinationals, we would be back to a surplus within a decade, could make the necessary changes to our infrastructure to meet international human rights standards, and then lower taxes across the board to become equivalent to, again, more successful nations.
Just one more way our system is broken.
Also, Germany, Japan and Canada don't have near the size of economy we do, gross or per capita. The US moves a fuckton of money and resources that its residents never benefit from.

Holy balls are we off-topic now. I should quit while we're still at least on politics. If I'm not careful I could find myself lecturing on space travel.

 

[Something Amyss]

Spoiler: Well, let's see...

Chris Matthews is glad Hurricane Sandy happened, brought "possibilities"[for Obama] [http://youtu.be/zH_pQY_4RhA?t=1m8s].

Spoiler: Well, let's see...

I appreciate the abruptness here, even though he clarified himself within the clip itself. I like how both yuo and the people reporting on it ignored that.

It should come as no surprise from someone who argues a percentage of America wants to asterisk Obama, believes white race must rule [http://youtu.be/2HK229rAsQw?t=50s].

Oooh, and another dishonest bit here. Yeah, within the actual quote, he attributes only a piece of this to racism. So which part is contentious? Do you disagree that there is an issue of racism, when polls did show a lot of people outright wouldn't vote for a black man? Do you disagree that there is an issue where many are looking for any excuse to not count Obama as President?

Protip: If you have to remove parts of a man's argument in order for it to look damning, you're not being honest or helping your point.

He also not only thinks America is killing Arabs and Islamic people [http://youtu.be/RUWFirsteuc?t=1m40s],

Who do you think we were fighting in the Middlea East? Afghanistan is Asia, but still heavily Islamic. Again, what he said is not inaccurate. He said we're not fighting Africans or Europeans. What part do you take issue with?

but it's all we seem to do these days [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/05/28/chris-matthews-killing-islamic-people-its-all-we-seem-do-these-days].

Still not an inaccurate statement, but your bias is showing heavily here in your choice of source material and in the part of the quote you choose to use.

I could make an entire post about Chris Matthews.

And it would probably be as dishonest as what I've already covered. Your evidence of equivalence on the left is heavily cut down soundbites that often dont'resemble what the videos actually show, and if they do show them it's only because of how narrow you've chosen the filter.

Which leads me to ask: why even make an argument that can be so readily debunked by actually looking at your own source material? Were you that sure nobody would actually look at it?

 

[AgedGrunt]

As for paying our way out of debt, socializing medicine, et cetera... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven I recommend you read that. All of it. If we were to repatriate taxes that should be owed by multinational corporations, it would pay off both of our unpaid-for wars and put us back on even footing with China. If we were to disallow the use of tax havens by our multinationals, we would be back to a surplus within a decade, could make the necessary changes to our infrastructure to meet international human rights standards, and then lower taxes across the board to become equivalent to, again, more successful nations.

I know it's far off-topic, but there is plenty to be said about the American tax code and how obfuscated and complex it is. The state of it is a metaphor for the US right now, broken, exploited and cheated on. If people want to fight disparity and have more money, that is the best place to start reforming.

Spoiler: @Zachary Amaranth

/snip

Seriously? You really need to move on or do something else with your time, because this obsession and denial is just sad at this time. I apologize to everyone having to go past this nonsense and for even attempting to make a point against the pointless.

 

[Buccura]

WIMIN R TAKIN' OUR JOBS WEN DEY SHOOLD BE IN DEH KITCHIN AM I RITE FELLAS! AM I RITE? WE CANT HAVE THEM HAVIN' CAREERS AND JOBS WEN DEY SHOOLD BE MAKIN' US A SANDWICH!

That's pretty much how I interpret this whole thing.

 

[The Material Sheep]

I want to comment on how dumb this is, but at the end of the day this is just a terrible low hanging fruit that I just have to scratch my head at. Even a fellow correspondent at Fox News wtf'd at it.

Was this on purpose or was it just 4 guys stuck in an echo chamber of ignorant antiquated ideas. I don't know whats worse, they were specifically pandering or they were just THAT stupid.

 

[SirPlindington]

I shouldn't be able to be disappointed in Fox anymore. And yet, they find a way.

 

[VondeVon]

So long as it doesn't hurt anyone, everyone should have the right to live the way they want to. If a man or woman subscribe to classic gender roles, or don't, it's no skin off anyone else's nose. Not until they start trying to force everyone else to do things their way, at least. I think this goes for conservatives and liberals. It's good to eliminate inequality, but people see equality differently.

My Mum was serious and anti-social but worked full-time as well as doing 'Mum things' like reading us bedtime stories, telling us to clean our rooms and bending our ears back for leaving half-eaten lunches to moulder at the bottom of our schoolbags.

My Dad was cheerful and social but worked full time as well as doing 'Dad things' like making our packed lunches and washing the dishes and helping us clean our rooms.

Fox News can still die in a fire, of course.

 

[VondeVon]

WIMIN R TAKIN' OUR JOBS WEN DEY SHOOLD BE IN DEH KITCHIN AM I RITE FELLAS! AM I RITE? WE CANT HAVE THEM HAVIN' CAREERS AND JOBS WEN DEY SHOOLD BE MAKIN' US A SANDWICH!

That's pretty much how I interpret this whole thing.

Succinct. ^-^