This week in feminism: Sex-neutral university fee changes decried as an 'attack on women'

[Metaphor]

So, there's a pretty clear answer here: fuck the crybabies.

They don't represent me. They don't represent you, either.

They can get hurt by that policy. If they wish, they can seek to repair this through a scholarship. Maybe men can opt to give up their balance of benefit and pay more so women can pay less again.

There's another great answer here: free access to higher education, for two to four years, depending on grades and scholarship programs as exist to create more diverse representation in education, with opportunities to borrow future education for graduate programs.

Maybe it delays entry into the job market. Maybe little to nothing changes and you didn't suggest an effective solution so why did you complain? The people complaining in the OP didn't either, from the looks of it. There is a lot of complaining without offering even potentially effective solutions here.

You live in Australia, Metaphor, you can call for effective change from your elected representatives, right? If you can't, why is that? Are they conservatives you helped elect?

I don't think you read the OP. I didn't say I was either for or against the changes. I merely pointed out the brain damage that feminist theory does to feminists to interpret sex-neutral policy changes as an 'attack on women'.

 

[laughing dog]

So, there's a pretty clear answer here: fuck the crybabies.

They don't represent me. They don't represent you, either.

They can get hurt by that policy. If they wish, they can seek to repair this through a scholarship. Maybe men can opt to give up their balance of benefit and pay more so women can pay less again.

There's another great answer here: free access to higher education, for two to four years, depending on grades and scholarship programs as exist to create more diverse representation in education, with opportunities to borrow future education for graduate programs.

Maybe it delays entry into the job market. Maybe little to nothing changes and you didn't suggest an effective solution so why did you complain? The people complaining in the OP didn't either, from the looks of it. There is a lot of complaining without offering even potentially effective solutions here.

You live in Australia, Metaphor, you can call for effective change from your elected representatives, right? If you can't, why is that? Are they conservatives you helped elect?

I don't think you read the OP. I didn't say I was either for or against the changes. I merely pointed out the brain damage that feminist theory does to feminists to interpret sex-neutral policy changes as an 'attack on women'.

Are these policy changes sex-neutral de facto as well? I don't know the answer to that, but if these changes have a disparate effect on women, then the feminists have a logical complaint.

 

[Metaphor]

So, there's a pretty clear answer here: fuck the crybabies.

They don't represent me. They don't represent you, either.

They can get hurt by that policy. If they wish, they can seek to repair this through a scholarship. Maybe men can opt to give up their balance of benefit and pay more so women can pay less again.

There's another great answer here: free access to higher education, for two to four years, depending on grades and scholarship programs as exist to create more diverse representation in education, with opportunities to borrow future education for graduate programs.

Maybe it delays entry into the job market. Maybe little to nothing changes and you didn't suggest an effective solution so why did you complain? The people complaining in the OP didn't either, from the looks of it. There is a lot of complaining without offering even potentially effective solutions here.

You live in Australia, Metaphor, you can call for effective change from your elected representatives, right? If you can't, why is that? Are they conservatives you helped elect?

I don't think you read the OP. I didn't say I was either for or against the changes. I merely pointed out the brain damage that feminist theory does to feminists to interpret sex-neutral policy changes as an 'attack on women'.

Are these policy changes sex-neutral de facto as well? I don't know the answer to that, but if these changes have a disparate effect on women, then the feminists have a logical complaint.

Nothing in the universe is sex-neutral if "disparate impact" is taken into account, because men and women make different choices to each other. But even a 'disparate impact' does not logically entail that it is an 'attack on women'. An attack on women would require that the choices were made with the intention of harming women. Only a feminist can imagine that's how the patriarchy forms public policy. Precisely why feminists are so confident of it I'm sure I don't know, because we don't let feminists in to the patriarchy meetings and I can spot them a mile off.

 

[laughing dog]

Are these policy changes sex-neutral de facto as well? I don't know the answer to that, but if these changes have a disparate effect on women, then the feminists have a logical complaint.

Nothing in the universe is sex-neutral if "disparate impact" is taken into account, because men and women make different choices to each other.

Congratulations to recognizing reality. A policy may be sex-neutral in intent but not in effect.

But even a 'disparate impact' does not logically entail that it is an 'attack on women'. An attack on women would require that the choices were made with the intention of harming women.

Or that there was recognition of the disparate effect and it was disregarded as unimportant or irrelevant. It seems to me that you are now engaged in "petty squawking" of the rhetoric used by that speaker.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'll post about what I post about and you'll just have to deal with it, luv.

That is fine and all, just rename your threads more accurately. Like for this one "One feminist is outraged". It'd actually be an accurate statement.

*Australia under funding secondary schooling*

Almost all people: What?! Why are they underfunding secondary schooling.
Person to the side: Sexism!!!
Metaphor: How stupid are feminists?! They think cutting funding to humanity courses is sexist.

I'll post about what I post about and you'll just have to deal with it, luv.

Out of witty retorts?

I consider influence to be what is capable of influencing laws and regulations.

All people are capable of doing that. People already in government - like the Greens SENATOR - can actually do it DIRECTLY.

A (one) Green Senator! OMG!

 

[Jarhyn]

So, there's a pretty clear answer here: fuck the crybabies.

They don't represent me. They don't represent you, either.

They can get hurt by that policy. If they wish, they can seek to repair this through a scholarship. Maybe men can opt to give up their balance of benefit and pay more so women can pay less again.

There's another great answer here: free access to higher education, for two to four years, depending on grades and scholarship programs as exist to create more diverse representation in education, with opportunities to borrow future education for graduate programs.

Maybe it delays entry into the job market. Maybe little to nothing changes and you didn't suggest an effective solution so why did you complain? The people complaining in the OP didn't either, from the looks of it. There is a lot of complaining without offering even potentially effective solutions here.

You live in Australia, Metaphor, you can call for effective change from your elected representatives, right? If you can't, why is that? Are they conservatives you helped elect?

I don't think you read the OP. I didn't say I was either for or against the changes. I merely pointed out the brain damage that feminist theory does to feminists to interpret sex-neutral policy changes as an 'attack on women'.

So you what, attacked some particular feminists, and then universalized that to all feminists, and maybe all females (unclear).

You didn't contribute anything. You didn't support anything. You didn't do or provide anything of value. Your opinion here is just screeching into a void. Few people support this kind of ridiculousness. Few feminists across feminism, few females, support them. You are using a broad brush propaganda technique and it targets women. And would you have me use your own broad brush to extend this shittiness across everyone who is for "men's rights"? To all men? See, I won't.

There are ways to resolve this situation for everyone. But you don't seem to care about that. You aren't showing a path forward, you are just giving a platform to crazy people. The rule of large numbers states that for a sufficiently large group, you can find an example of pretty much anything. Like a few women claiming to represent feminism and being butthurt over having to pay higher tuition.

But that doesn't solve underlying problems that are real grievances: many women have less access to educational funding.

So if you can, evaluate the facts, solve for X. Charging men more for University is biased. Charging women more for University puts it out of reach, especially since women in many families across the world and also in Australia do not support their daughters in education, and will not pay for education. This is also an injustice. To me, I see the problem go away when university costs students nothing. The point becomes moot.

I also see it as going away if women argue for an optional donation of tuition to the advancement of women. They get less, but they get some by consent of the disadvantaged.

 

[Metaphor]

Congratulations to recognizing reality. A policy may be sex-neutral in intent but not in effect.

Policies written without reference to sex are sex-neutral. Laws against inflicting grievous bodily harm are written because grievous bodily harm is a situation society wants to avoid. The fact that men fall foul of this law more often than women because men choose to inflict GBH more often is not a design flaw in the law.

Or that there was recognition of the disparate effect and it was disregarded as unimportant or irrelevant. It seems to me that you are now engaged in "petty squawking" of the rhetoric used by that speaker.

No. The disparate impact on menof GBH laws is irrelevant, but that doesn't make the law an attack on men.

 

[Metaphor]

So you what, attacked some particular feminists, and then universalized that to all feminists, and maybe all females (unclear).

I attacked specific feminists. I generalised that to feminism (not other feminists), because current feminism understands women to be a permanent victim class, and so if your belief system is influenced by feminism, you are more likely to believe women to be a permanent victim class and you are more likely to believe that everything is an attack on women.

I didn't generalise anything to all women. Women are not a hive mind. I also did not exclude men from the brain rotting disease of feminism. There are male feminists too, you know.

You didn't contribute anything. You didn't support anything. You didn't do or provide anything of value. Your opinion here is just screeching into a void. Few people support this kind of ridiculousness. Few feminists across feminism, few females, support them.

How would you know if feminists support it or not? Indeed, I'd love to see a feminist defend the right to these changes in mainstream media.

You are using a broad brush propaganda technique and it targets women. And would you have me use your own broad brush to extend this shittiness across everyone who is for "men's rights"? To all men? See, I won't.

Feminist does not equal woman. "Woman" is not a belief system.

There are ways to resolve this situation for everyone. But you don't seem to care about that. You aren't showing a path forward, you are just giving a platform to crazy people. The rule of large numbers states that for a sufficiently large group, you can find an example of pretty much anything.

I've told you three times that the law of large numbers does not mean what you think it means.

But that doesn't solve underlying problems that are real grievances: many women have less access to educational funding.

Non. In Australia, women have the same access as men.

So if you can, evaluate the facts, solve for X. Charging men more for University is biased. Charging women more for University puts it out of reach, especially since women in many families across the world and also in Australia do not support their daughters in education, and will not pay for education.

Irrelevant. Most students don't have their fees paid by parents up front. Most students use the HELP system to defer their fees. I used HELP.

Also, I have not ever encountered a family that supports their sons in education but not their daughters. You keep some strange company.

 

[laughing dog]

Congratulations to recognizing reality. A policy may be sex-neutral in intent but not in effect.

Policies written without reference to sex are sex-neutral. Laws against inflicting grievous bodily harm are written because grievous bodily harm is a situation society wants to avoid. The fact that men fall foul of this law more often than women because men choose to inflict GBH more often is not a design flaw in the law.

Who said a disparate impact was necessarily a design flaw?

I am not going to get into another one of your petty pedantic squawks. A policy that is sex neutral in design need not be sex neutral in effect. Whether that is a design flaw or not depends on the specifics of the situation.

[

No. The disparate impact on menof GBH laws is irrelevant, but that doesn't make the law an attack on men.

Your logic is faulty. One example is not a demonstrative proof of a general claim. I have no interest in your petty pedantic squawks.

 

[Metaphor]

That is fine and all, just rename your threads more accurately. Like for this one "One feminist is outraged". It'd actually be an accurate statement.

No, I'm not going to do that. Feminists are like cockroaches: if you spot one there's sure to be more.

My 'this week in feminism' threads are meant to inform about the ongoing madness that is feminist thought and theory. It features different feminists each time, though of course there are usual suspects too.

I'll post about what I post about and you'll just have to deal with it, luv.

A (one) Green Senator! OMG!

Yep. Someone that deranged is a legislator.

 

[Metaphor]

Who said a disparate impact was necessarily a design flaw?

I am not going to get into another one of your petty pedantic squawks. A policy that is sex neutral in design need not be sex neutral in effect. Whether that is a design flaw or not depends on the specifics of the situation.

[

No. The disparate impact on menof GBH laws is irrelevant, but that doesn't make the law an attack on men.

Your logic is faulty. One example is not a demonstrative proof of a general claim. I have no interest in your petty pedantic squawks.

I wrote:

But even a 'disparate impact' does not logically entail that it is an 'attack on women'. An attack on women would require that the choices were made with the intention of harming women.

You wrote:

Or that there was recognition of the disparate effect and it was disregarded as unimportant or irrelevant.

You are saying, not just implying, that a disparate impact that was disregarded as unimportant or irrelevant is sufficient to turn a policy into an 'attack on women'. If instead you meant 'it could mean the policy was an attack on women', then I agree it could be.

 

[ZiprHead]

No, I'm not going to do that. Feminists are like cockroaches: if you spot one there's sure to be more.

Wow!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are these policy changes sex-neutral de facto as well? I don't know the answer to that, but if these changes have a disparate effect on women, then the feminists have a logical complaint.

Disparate impact should be nuked from orbit.

 

[Metaphor]

No, I'm not going to do that. Feminists are like cockroaches: if you spot one there's sure to be more.

Wow!

If you are a feminist for whom the label 'cockroach' doesn't apply, then you needn't be offended. See, that's a trick I learned from feminists when they defend their mass generalizations of men and male behaviour.

Of course, "men" isn't an ideological grouping, it's a biological one, and there is no ideology that unites all men (except of course the patriarchy, which has been really, like really, sloppy lately, having allowed women credit cards in their own name and even higher education).

 

[ruby sparks]

No, I'm not going to do that. Feminists are like cockroaches: if you spot one there's sure to be more.

Wow!

If you are a feminist for whom the label 'cockroach' doesn't apply, then you needn't be offended. See, that's a trick I learned from feminists when they defend their mass generalizations of men and male behaviour.

Two wrongs don’t make a right though. At least own your own shit instead of whining about what others do and then doing it yourself but citing them.

Thanks for coming out in the open.

Of course, "men" isn't an ideological grouping, it's a biological one, and there is no ideology that unites all men

Again with the spurious distinctions. Nice try, but dubious mass generalisations do not necessarily have to be about ideology. I'm seeing how this thinking thing all works for you. As with the 'transgender women are men' you choose your own criteria and definitions and then, voila, you believe you have made a point.

 

[Metaphor]

Two wrongs don’t make a right though.

Are you suggesting it is wrong for feminists to generalise about men?

Again with the spurious distinctions. Nice try, but dubious mass generalisations do not necessarily have to be about ideology. I'm seeing how this thinking thing all works for you. As with the 'transgender women are men' you choose your own criteria and definitions and then, voila, you believe you have made a point.

I didn't choose the definition of women, nor the rules of logic. Lexicographers chose the definition and the rules of logic chose themselves.

Men are adult human males. Trans women are adult human males. Therefore, trans women are men.

I'm sorry that it's difficult for you to process.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is fine and all, just rename your threads more accurately. Like for this one "One feminist is outraged". It'd actually be an accurate statement.

No, I'm not going to do that. Feminists are like cockroaches: if you spot one there's sure to be more.

Got it, so don't get upset when people call on your hyperbole.

My 'this week in feminism' threads are meant to inform about the ongoing madness that is feminist thought and theory. It features different feminists each time, though of course there are usual suspects too.

Interesting.

My 'this week in conservative thought' threads talk about my observations of a conservative and broadbrushes it to all conservatives. This week I discuss how conservatives think women are "cockroaches". Yeah, the context is lost a little, but that should expected to happen when broadbrushing.

 

[Metaphor]

Got it, so don't get upset when people call on your hyperbole.

My 'this week in feminism' threads are meant to inform about the ongoing madness that is feminist thought and theory. It features different feminists each time, though of course there are usual suspects too.

Interesting.

My 'this week in conservative thought' threads talk about my observations of a conservative and broadbrushes it to all conservatives. This week I discuss how conservatives think women are "cockroaches". Yeah, the context is lost a little, but that should expected to happen when broadbrushing.

Which conservative called women cockroaches? What a nasty thing to say.

 

[laughing dog]

Are these policy changes sex-neutral de facto as well? I don't know the answer to that, but if these changes have a disparate effect on women, then the feminists have a logical complaint.

Disparate impact should be nuked from orbit.

You are against recognizing facts and reality?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are these policy changes sex-neutral de facto as well? I don't know the answer to that, but if these changes have a disparate effect on women, then the feminists have a logical complaint.

Disparate impact should be nuked from orbit.

You are against recognizing facts and reality?

Disparate impact is about pretending non-discriminatory things are discriminatory.