General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Regis Glass
Jubilee
comments

Comments by "Regis Glass" (@regisglass5464) on "Do Women Really Have it Harder? Male Feminists vs Antifeminists | Middle Ground" video.

 @yannickclaes90 is that why 40% of households have women as the main breadwinner?
36
@DavidW-ng5zv thus my question. As you state women are starting to make more money than men, is that why they're 40% of households breadwinners? Are you stating as such in an attempt to backtrack from your position on hypergamy?
13
 @sparkynate91 if that's what men are built for, then why was it forced by law for women to not do those things?
12
What point were you in the middle of?
8
@DavidW-ng5zv thus my statement. If only the law is what impedes women from doing what men do, then why shouldn't they do it?
8
@DavidW-ng5zv thus my question, do you believe women are hypergamous because they're the breadwinners in 40% of houses?
7
@DavidW-ng5zv "women are beginning to out-earn men [...], their list of male suitors get smaller and smaller" per your words: the more successfull women become, the less they date. You even write they divorce if they're already married.
7
@DavidW-ng5zv yet as you kindly wrote, they don't date. They even divorce. So why is not dating mean women are hypergamous? Or are you complaining that women aren't dating multiple men at the same time, ie, arguing against monogamy?
7
@DavidW-ng5zv is that why they're the main breadwinner in 40% of houses?
6
@feelingwell8069 no, i don't drive that type of car
5
@DavidW-ng5zv "women are beginning to out-earn men [...], their list of male suitors get smaller and smaller" Note your words, financially independent women essentially stop dating. Seems odd not dating is hypergamy or that suddenly finding one person you like is hypergamy. Or are you complaining that women aren't dating multiple men at the same time?
5
@SuperJudeM i assure you, women are becoming financially independent and are choosing who to be with. It's actually caused some unexpected issues for men because now they can't just say "I'm employed" and expect their part of the relationship to be done. Now they have to offer other things and, unfortunately, society has not prepared men for that.
4
@DavidW-ng5zv again, as you kindly wrote, women don't date or date very little after becoming financially independent. Seems an odd way to describe hypergamy after you even write monogamy doesn't work while stating women are monogamous or simply not dating
4
@DavidW-ng5zv "women are beginning to out-earn men [...], their list of male suitors get smaller and smaller" Note your words, financially independent women basically stop dating. Seems odd not dating is hypergamy or that suddenly finding one person you like is hypergamy.
4
@DavidW-ng5zv seems odd you also attempt to imply divorced women (some with children) are generally what men search for in a partner. Do you believe that's hypergamy?
4
@sparkynate91 that's weird, you didn't check your comment? To give you context, it only became legal for women to fight in the military in 2016
4
@DavidW-ng5zv exactly, as you now backtrack to stating successful women simply stop or rarely date, why is that hypergamy?
3
Not particularly. Women are 90% of nurses and they still get paid less than men who are nurses. It's quite unfair to do the same job yet still be paid less, especially when you're considered better than those getting paid more.
2
True, the problem's men have are because they're seen as inherently strong and competent while the problems women have is that they're biologically seen as weak and incompetent.
2
That's strange, then as the women's soccer teams wins far more than the men's team, why are they still paid less? Likewise, why do you believe athletes are paid through, for example, the souvenir shop? But thank you for accepting the wage gap is real
2
That's odd, you believe feminism is wrong because the titanic crashed?
2
@SuperJudeM that's interesting, you changed it. I never said anything about married, even the guy saying women are hypergamous was ranting about divorced and single women. So why did you say i was wrong by sneaking in the word "married"? Quite strange you're trying to lecture me about what women want by ignoring statistics
2
Didn't roe v wade get repealed? Seems women have less privileges if their bodily autonomy is subject to the whims of the state
2
 @DavidW-ng5zv that's odd, then why was it only an anti-feminist who stated women shouldn't be financially independent?
2
Everyone has to prove themselves
2
Not really. Selective service doesn't really do anything.
2
 @DavidW-ng5zv odd, what duty do you mean?
2
@DavidW-ng5zv that's interesting, then you agree selective service does nothing as you switch away from it?
2
@ComedyGlor excellently described
2
 @DavidW-ng5zv then why is it only an anti-feminist who said women shouldn't be financially independent?
2
 @DavidW-ng5zv apologies, but the wage gap is a verified reality. For example, note women are 90% of nurses but are still paid less than men.
2
Then why is it that women still get paid less in nursing compared to men despite 90% of nurses being women?
1
 @DavidW-ng5zv then why are female nurses paid less than male ones when women are 90% of nurses? If you wish, you can state modeling is a more important and dangerous job than nursing.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv then as you agree women are paid less than men in nursing despite doing the same job, why do you defend it by stating the majority of inpatient and urban areas aren't covered by female nurses? Do you not believe 90% of nurses are women?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv as now you accept women earn less despite overwhelmingly being in higher paying locations and doing the same job as men, why are they earning less despite nearly all high paying fields, eg, nurse CEO, tending to be women? It seems feminism is needed if a male and female nurse doing the exact same job means the men earn more.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv yet women are overrepresented as nurse CEOs to the point male nurse CEOs have decreased on a year per year basis. So why are women still paid less when we compare for the exact same job and the average of low-high paying positions?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv apologies, but we agreed that when comparing the same job that men are still paid more. Then you switched to comparing the average between the lowest and highest paying job, and we concluded men still make more even though women are more nurse CEOs. So why are women still paid less?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv that's odd, you backtracked again. Why not provide your source as you had previously agreed women doing the same nurse position, eg, specialist, are paid less than men and that women are overrepresented in high paying positions, eg, nurse CEO, yet are still paid less than men? Seems odd you attempt to shift to state that 90% of the workforce doesn't do a full shift or is found in high paying locations. Again, as you backtrack to stating the wage gap isn't real despite trying to justify it, why not provide your source?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thus my request for your source as you change quite a bit. Again, you previously agreed women doing the same nurse position, eg, specialists, are paid less than men. You then tried to switch to state men are overrepresented in specialists but you also noted women are also overrepresented in high paying positions, eg, nurse CEO. So again, as you backtrack from accepting the wage gap is real, why not provide your source?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thank you for accepting the wage gap is real per your source stating "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." Seems strange you ignored your sources conclusions, but thank you for agreeing with feminism
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thank you for accepting your source states "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." And thank you for accepting the wage gap is real per your new source: "For men, the average annual compensation is $376,000, whereas women take home $283,000. The survey only included physicians in full-time roles." Thus, thank you for (inadvertently) agreeing with feminism.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv seems odd you wish to go against what your own sourced state, but thank you for providing evidence to supports feminism
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, per your source "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." And per your new source: "For men, the average annual compensation is $376,000, whereas women take home $283,000. The survey only included physicians in full-time roles." Thus, thank you for (inadvertently) agreeing with feminism.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, per your source "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." Thus, thank you for (inadvertently) agreeing with feminism.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv And per your new source: "For men, the average annual compensation is $376,000, whereas women take home $283,000. The survey only included physicians in full-time roles." Seems odd you disagree with your conclusions
1
@DavidW-ng5zv per your source: "For men, the average annual compensation is $376,000, whereas women take home $283,000. The survey only included physicians in full-time roles." Seems odd you disagree with your conclusions
1
@DavidW-ng5zv per your other source "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." Thus, thank you for (inadvertently) agreeing with feminism.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv once again, per your source "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." And per your other source: "For men, the average annual compensation is $376,000, whereas women take home $283,000. The survey only included physicians in full-time roles." Thus, thank you for (inadvertently) agreeing with feminism.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, per your source "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." And per your other source: "For men, the average annual compensation is $376,000, whereas women take home $283,000. The survey only included physicians in full-time roles." Thus, thank you for (inadvertently) agreeing with feminism.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv it's odd you consider your source a liar for stating "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." And your other source for stating: "For men, the average annual compensation is $376,000, whereas women take home $283,000. The survey only included physicians in full-time roles." Again, thank you for (inadvertently) agreeing with feminism.
1
@edwin1845 apologies, but i am merely concluding under what the other individual sourced. And per his source: "For men, the average annual compensation is $376,000, whereas women take home $283,000. The survey only included physicians in full-time roles." Do you agree with feminists that men should get paternity leave?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv exactly, you believe me repeating what your source states is lying. Truly odd you consider your sources conclusions to be lying: "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." And the other: "For men, the average annual compensation is $376,000, whereas women take home $283,000. The survey only included physicians in full-time roles." Thus, thank you for inadvertently agreeing with feminism.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv you are welcome to ignore your source stating "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." And: "For men, the average annual compensation is $376,000, whereas women take home $283,000. The survey only included physicians in full-time roles." Thus, again, thank you for inadvertently agreeing with feminism.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv and as your source states: "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." And: "For men, the average annual compensation is $376,000, whereas women take home $283,000. The survey only included physicians in full-time roles." Thus, thank you for inadvertently agreeing with feminism.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv precisely, and as your source states in regards to what you wrote: "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." And: "For men, the average annual compensation is $376,000, whereas women take home $283,000. The survey only included physicians in full-time roles." Thus, thank you for inadvertently agreeing with feminism.
1
If so, why is it the women's US soccer team winning more and generating more money means they still get paid less? Seems odd a #1 ranked team must subsidize a number 30 ranked team, agreed?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thus my query. Again, why is it the US women's soccer team winning more and generating more money means they get paid less? For example, haven't the men's US team failed to qualify for the world cup? Seems odd the women's #1 ranked team must subsidize a #30 ranked team by being paid less.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thus my question, haven't the men's US soccer team failed to qualify for the world cup while the women always qualify? Again, seems odd the women's US soccer team has to subsidize the men's.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thus my query, haven't the men's US soccer team failed multiple times to qualify for the world cup while the women always succeed? Again, seems odd the women's US soccer team has to then subsidize the men's..
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thank you for accepting the men's US soccer team only now qualified for the world cup, ie, they have failed to qualify before. As you also noted the women always qualify and nearly always win, ie, they generate more money, why should they subsidize the men's team because they sometimes qualify for the world cup?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thank you for accepting the men's US soccer team hasn't qualified for the world cup multiple times while the women always qualify and nearly always win, ie, they generate more money. If you wish to believe local games generate more revenue, you are entitled to do so. Regardless, why should the women subsidize the men's team
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, if you wish to believe local games generate more revenue, you are entitled to do so. Regardless, thank you for accepting the men's US soccer team failed to qualify for the world cup multiple times while the women always qualify and nearly always win, ie, they generate more money. So why should the women subsidize the men's team?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv then again, if you wish to believe local games generate more revenue, you are entitled to do so. But thank you for accepting the men's US soccer team failed to qualify for the world cup multiple times while the women always qualify and nearly always win, ie, they generate more money. I thus disagree the women should subsidize the men's team.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv and as stated, if you wish to believe local games generate more revenue, you are entitled to do so. But per accepting the men's US soccer team has failed to qualify for the world cup (multiple times) while the women always qualify and nearly always win, ie, they generate more money, I thus disagree the women should subsidize the men's team.
1
@abz.rehman no, it's pretty clear the women's soccer team is far more successful than the men's team, ie, win and generate more money. Just note the fact that the men's soccer team fails to get into the world cup
1
@DavidW-ng5zv why do you seem to believe local games generate more revenue compared to the world cup simply because the men have failed to apply for it? Again, as the women always qualify and nearly always win, ie, they generate more money, I thus disagree the women should subsidize the men's team.
1
@abz.rehman certainly, first do you believe the world cup generates more revenue than local games? Because the men have failed to qualify while the woman always qualify for the world cup.
1
@abz.rehman after all, it would be fairly strange to say men generate more money through the world cup if they don't qualify for it
1
@abz.rehman then as you noted local games don't generate more than world cups and only the women always qualify for the world cup, thank you for accepting they generate more money
1
@DavidW-ng5zv precisely, what money was generated with the men not qualifying for the world cup? Again, thank you for accepting the women always qualify while the men don't, ie, the women's team generates more money.
1
@abz.rehman apologies, are you backtracking? So you do believe local games generate more than the world cup?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv yet as you graciously noted, the men's team have failed to qualify for the world cup. Per thus noticing the lack of money generated, thank you for accepting the women's team generates more money.
1
@abz.rehman and we know nobody went to the men's world cup because they didn't qualify. So as we know the women not only qualified but actually won (and do this consistently), thank you for noticing the women generate more money. Quite odd they're still paid less, is it not?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv yet you graciously agreed the men's team has failed to qualify for the world cup. Per thus noticing that generates no money, thank you for accepting the women's team generates more money.
1
@abz.rehman It is a bit odd you tried to correlate trying out for the world cup with the actual world cup. Regardless, as we agree the women do generate more money by qualifying and winning, it is quite odd they're paid less, agreed?
1
@abz.rehman agreed. For example, do you believe trying out for the world cup is the same as being in the world cup?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv if you wish to pretend local games generate more than the world cup, than i thank you for showing why feminism exists to oppose the wage gap
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, if you wish to pretend local games generate more than the world cup, thank you for showing why feminism exists to oppose the wage gap
1
@DavidW-ng5zv as stated, as you wish to pretend local games generate more money than the world cup, thank you for showing why feminism exists to oppose the wage gap.
1
@warriorspanthersblackhawks4651 Ok, i understand. In regards to sports, that one actually has it's own more interesting logic. To give you an example, the women's soccer team is consistently ranked #1 in the world while the men's team is #30. However, because society prefers to watch men lose rather than women win, this leads to people stating that the women's team has to do more than win (and break several records) in order to receive just pay. Meanwhile the men can consistently be seen as one of the worst teams on the planet yet receive greater compensation.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv if women are paid equally, then why are female nurse specialists earning less than male nurse specialists doing the same job and working for the same full shift?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv apologies, but as you write that in negotiations women are offered lower salaries while men are offered higher ones by default, isn't that showing exactly why the wage gap exists? Seems odd to justify it by confirming men are given higher wages for doing the same job.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thus my statement. As you now state negotiations involve offering men more money while women are seen as more agreeable so they're offered less money (unless you believe women actively state they want less), isn't that agreeing with feminism over the wage gap? Please note this means merit isn't being judged as they do the same work.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv exactly, thank you for agreeing that women constantly winning is still seen as worse to men constantly losing
1
@DavidW-ng5zv precisely, men are still offered more money while women are seen as more agreeable so they're offered less money when negotiating. So again, isn't that agreeing with feminism over the wage gap? Seems odd you believe that's fair
1
 @DavidW-ng5zv note you now agree both men and women negotiate yet women are still offered less for the same work. So why is it fair merit isn't rewarded?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv i apologize, but as you constantly change your answers, would you then provide your source?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv now you backtrack again. As you thus believe women are offered a lower wage in negotiations while men are not, isn't that accepting feminists are correct? Note you previously changed from stating only men negotiate to now stating women negotiate but not like men. Please note both show that men have a preference in wages.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv however, as you constantly change your position, kindly provide your source so we may see what it states. I'm confused why you state you provided your source when no name has been provided
1
@DavidW-ng5zv apologies, but you deflected again. As you constantly change your answers, please provide the name of your sources so i may read them. Notice how you backtrack from stating women don't negotiate. Thus, as we agree that when men and women negotiate, women are offered lower wages, isn't that agreeing with feminism?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv apologies, but your quote has no source. Please provide it as i am uncertain what you mean by past comments. Other people you disagree with are unrelated to me
1
@DavidW-ng5zv that's interesting, you seem to state your source doesn't present as you claim. Is that why you don't wish to provide it? If your source doesn't support you, is this why you change from stating women don't negotiate to stating they do negotiate but given lesser wages? Note that you seem to state men get a preference regardless. Again, kindly provide your source
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, as you constantly backtrack to the point you imply your source states the wage gap is real, why not provide it so we may see what it states?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv apologies, but you deflected again. As you constantly change your position in writing female nurses negotiate their salaries and are offered less than men, why not provide your source so we may see what it presents? It seems odd you write you won't provide it because it seems to show the wage gap is real. Again, kindly provide your source so we may see its conclusions
1
@DavidW-ng5zv even your quote contains no source, so it seems odd you refuse to provide the source after i ask where you obtained said quote from. And you can believe of me as you wish
1
@DavidW-ng5zv that's odd. Now you change to state women don't negotiate at all. As you then believe about 90% of of the staff don't negotiate and are thus only offered lower wages due to being seen as more agreeable, isn't that agreeing with feminism over the wage gap? Again, seems odd your source seems to state the wage gap is real which is why you refuse to provide it
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, as you provided quotes and even provided various examples justifying why women are paid less before backtracking, do you not provide your source because it states the wage gap is real and agrees with feminism?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv then as you constantly change your position, please provide your sources name. Thus far your justification is that 90% of the staff don't negotiate their salaries at all and get lower wages because they're seen as more agreeable.
1
 @DavidW-ng5zv again, i merely request a source for your quotes. it seems odd you refuse to provide it. Do you do so per noticing what it concludes?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thank you for providing your source and thus agreeing with feminism: "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." Is this why you refused to provide the source? Because it agrees with feminism after controlling all your justifications for the wage gap?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv seems odd you wish to ignore your sources conclusions in order to state the wage gap isn't real.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv per your source, thank you for agreeing with feminism: "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty."
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, seems odd you wish to ignore your sources conclusions. Is that why you refused to provide it?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv per the examples you gave: "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." Again, seems odd you ignore the conclusions of your source simply because it means you agree with feminism.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv yet per your source: "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." Still odd you ignore the conclusions of your source simply because it means you agree with feminism.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv and per your source: "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." If you wish to ignore your source, you are entitled to do so. But thank you for showing feminism is correct
1
@DavidW-ng5zv per your source: "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." If you wish to ignore your source, you are entitled to do so. But thank you for showing feminism is correct as you even try to argue it's conclusion is incorrect
1
This is fair
1
 @DavidW-ng5zv that's odd, do you mean women being able to say no to sex is inequality?
1
You are welcome to believe as you wish. But i do thank you for accepting the wage gap exists
1
@DavidW-ng5zv why wouldn't i believe the wage gap exists when you also agreed it does? For example, why not provide the sources you gave in regards to nurses?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv as for sports, you are still entitled to believe every athlete there is is paid in merchandizing.
1
 @DavidW-ng5zv then would you like to write the name of the sources? Surely it can only support you to provide them? For example, note nurse journal.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv precisely, per sports, you are entitled to believe all athletes are paid through, for example, souvenir shops, and believe sports clubs are the same as athletes (even though sports clubs have lost lawsuits over pay discrimination)
1
@DavidW-ng5zv then why not provide it so we note I didn't take a different one?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv then if I am strawmanning you, why not provide the source so everyone can see what it says and prove i am doing so?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thus my request. If I am strawmanning you, why not show as such by providing your source? Otherwise it seems your source states the wage gap is real, or who wouldn't show that which strengthens their position?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv "it is real" excellent, thank you for agreeing with feminists. Thus, so we may see what your source states about it being real, kindly provide it. Note you already backtracked from stating there is no wage gap and you refuse to provide your source. Is this due to noticing what it concludes?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv "it is real" again, thank you for agreeing with feminists. You are entitled to believe of me as you wish, but would you kindly provide your source so we may see what it states? Seems odd you simply refuse to provide a source after stating the wage gap is real.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, note you backtracked from stating there is no wage gap. Do you not provide your source due to noticing what it concludes?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv yet you still refuse to provide your source. Do you act as such because of what your sources conclude? Note you backtrack to agreeing with feminists over the wage gap after reading the sources you refuse to provide.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv then would you kindly provide the source? Again, it seems quite telling you refuse to provide it. Is this due to noticing what it concludes? Again, note you immediately backtracked from stating the wage gap isn't real upon reading it.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv you are entitled to believe of me as you wish, but it is quite telling you refuse to provide your source
1
@DavidW-ng5zv then would you graciously write the sources name to show i cherrypicked? Again, it's quite telling you refuse to provide it when you even immediately backtracked from stating the wage gap isn't real. Do you simply not wish to reveal it's conclusions? But thank you for accepting the wage gap is real
1
@DavidW-ng5zv you are entitled to believe of me as you wish, but it is quite telling you refuse to provide your source. Is this due to noticing it would be my source?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv per your source: "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." Thus, thank you for agreeing with feminism.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv seems odd you wish to ignore your sources conclusions in order to disagree with feminism
1
@DavidW-ng5zv per your source: "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." Again, thank you for agreeing with feminism.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv per your source: "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." Thank you for inadvertently agreeing with feminism though it seems strange you didn't read your source.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv per your source: "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." Thank you for inadvertently agreeing with feminism though it seems strange you didn't read your source.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv per your source: "male RNs tend to earn about $10,000 more per year than their female RN counterparts, although that gap narrows to $5,100 when adjusted for factors like age, education, and specialty." Thus, thank you for inadvertently agreeing with feminism
1
Which point?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv you are welcome to believe of me as you wish
1
@DavidW-ng5zv you are welcome to choose whatever answer for me you wish
1
@DavidW-ng5zv regardless of the answer I provide, you will make your own choice over it. Thus, you are entitled to believe and choose you wish
1
@DavidW-ng5zv and as i stated, you are fully entitled to believe I am whatever you so wish.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv "i don't believe either" again, thank you for providing your answer. You are entitled to believe in it
1
@DavidW-ng5zv "i don't believe either" and again, thank you for providing your own answer. You are entitled to believe it
1
@DavidW-ng5zv "i don't believe either" as stated, thank you for providing your own answer. You are entitled to believe in it
1
@DavidW-ng5zv "i don't believe either" and again, thank you for providing your own answer and you are entitled to believe in it
1
@DavidW-ng5zv yet your own answer was "i don't believe either". Thus, thank you for providing your own answer and you are entitled to believe in it
1
@DavidW-ng5zv per writing "i don't believe either", thank you for providing your own answer. You are entitled to believe in it
1
@DavidW-ng5zv you can change the subject if you wish. Again, per writing "i don't believe either", thank you for providing your own answer. You are entitled to believe it
1
@DavidW-ng5zv and as i stated, you can change the subject if you wish. But per writing "i don't believe either", thank you for providing your own answer. You are entitled to believe it
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thank you for noticing you can change the subject. Regardless, per writing "i don't believe either", thank you for providing your own answer over me. You are entitled to believe in your answer.
1
 @DavidW-ng5zv you are entitled to believe of me as you wish. But thank you for thus providing your new answer
1
@DavidW-ng5zv you are welcome to believe of me as you wish. But thank you for thus revealing your answer
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, you are welcome to believe as you wish. But thank you for revealing your answer per your subject change
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, you are entitled to believe of me as you wish. But thank you for revealing your answer per your subject change
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, you are entitled to believe of me as you wish. But thank you for revealing your answer
1
 @DavidW-ng5zv apologies, but what market states they don't need teachers?
1
 @DavidW-ng5zv apologies, then you noted there is an enormous demand for teachers by the market?
1
 @DavidW-ng5zv exactly, so there is an enormous demand for teachers per the market always demanding it? Or is the market not enough?
1
 @DavidW-ng5zv precisely, is there an enormous demand for teachers as per the market? Is the market demanding teachers while also underpaying them?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv exactly, only the population ceasing to exist means the demand for teachers stops. So as we agree teachers have a higher demand than basketball players, is the market then underpaying them?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, thank you for agreeing there is a greater demand for teachers than basketball players. So why are they underpaid to the point you justify basketball players earning more? Note there actually is an answer to this
1
@DavidW-ng5zv yet the demand for teachers is still greater to the point every single parent in the country searches for one. So again, as you noted the demand for teachers supercedes that of basketball players, why are they still paid less?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv still odd you noted the market puts greater demand on teachers yet still state sponsorships are why teachers get paid less. Were you unaware schools also get sponsorships?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thank you for accepting the demand for teachers is higher while still being underpaid. Do you believe excellent teachers make more than basketball players that you seem to believe bad basketball players don't exist?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thank you for backtracking in regards to sponsorships. Thus, thank you for accepting teachers are underpaid despite it.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thus my statement, as you accept the demand for teachers is higher while still being underpaid, isn't that accepting the market can't resolve this situation?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv then do you believe excellent teachers make more than basketball players because their demand is greater?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv then do excellent teachers earn more than basketball players? Note you agree there is a greater demand for teachers
1
@DavidW-ng5zv yet their demand is higher than basketball players. So why are they paid less? Again, note you implied it's because the demand is so high the market can't pay them what they're worth
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thank you for accepting the demand for teachers is higher than basketball players and that bad basketball players earn more than excellent teachers.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv and again, is the reason teachers earn less because the demand is so high the market can't provide it?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv then if being a teacher is easy, why is there still a greater demand than basketball players?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv "Where do you think the money will come from?" are you implying the market can't pay teachers what they're worth because the demand is too high?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv "the extra money" thus my question, are you implying the market can't pay them because the demand for teachers is too high?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv and if teachers are paid what they're worth, why is their demand higher?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv "Where will this money come from?" Thus my query, are you implying the market can't pay teachers what they're worth because the demand is too high?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, as teachers demand is higher, why are they not paid their worth? Note the difference between intrinsic need and relative need.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv precisely, teaching is an inherent value as civilization itself cannot exist without it, ie, the market has an extreme and never ending demand for it, while basketball is relative, ie, the market does not have an extreme demand for it and thus the supply adjust to it. So as we clearly agree teachers have a higher demand than basketball players, is the reason they're not paid what they're worth because their demand is too high?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv "Where will this money come from?" Again, are you implying the market can't pay teachers what they're worth because the demand for teachers is too high?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv yes, the population disappearing is the only thing that limits the demand for teachers. So as we agree teachers are of such high value, why are they paid less than basketball players? Again note the difference between intrinsic and relative value.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv if they're paid what they're worth, then why imply the market can't pay them higher wages due to their demand being too high? You even ask where the money will come from.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv "are you prepared to pay insane amounts of taxes?" So you are aware that without government intervention teachers would be inaccessible to nearly the entire populace, ie, the demand is so high almost no one could afford it? After all, anyone can afford basketball tickets without government interference.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, aren't you implying the market can't pay them higher wages due to the demand for teachers being so high? Or is it only possible to get teachers through taxes?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thus my question. Then you are aware without the government the worth of teachers would be so high that almost no one could afford them? Again, aren't you implying the market can't provide said wages because the demand is too high?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv that's odd, I assumed you understood what you meant when you wrote of taxes. Please note the difference between relative and intrinsic value, ie, you implied the market has too high a demand for teachers it can't pay them what they're worth.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv excellent, then as you are aware the worth of teachers would be so high that almost no one could afford them unless the government stepped in, aren't you implying the market can't provide the value of their wages because the demand is too high?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv and yet you are aware that without government interference the value of a teacher would be so high that the market wouldn't be able to provide for it. So again, isn't that you stating the market can't provide them their value because their demand is too high?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv yet you agreed that without government interference the value of a teacher would be so high that the market wouldn't be able to provide it, ie, education would only be accessible to a few. So again, isn't that you stating the market can't provide them their value because their demand is too high? Note you even tried to deflect by demanding i answer if I want taxes to go up.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv yet you graciously agreed that without government interference the value of a teacher would be so high that the market wouldn't be able to provide it. Again, note you stating the market can't provide their by demanding i answer if I want taxes to go up.
1
@Olivia-bl8ez that's odd, you believe the stadium pays athletes? So stadiums are the owners of all teams?
1
@Olivia-bl8ez correct, they generate and do more than the men's team. So why are they still paid less?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv that's interesting, you noted the women do more than the men as per what the other wrote. Thus, as the women's soccer team is better than the men's team in winning and generating revenue, why aren't they paid more than the men? For example, the men are paid when the lose while the women are not (even though the men lose far more).
1
@Olivia-bl8ez note you accept the women are generating vastly more revenue due to winning, yet you defend them earning less because they have healthcare. Seems odd you believe men don't have healthcare
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thank you for accepting the wage gap is real as women winning and generating more revenue means they still get paid less. Why is it correct men losing money means they have better pay than women making money? Why is losing seen as better than winning?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv if you believe the other was lying, you are welcome to argue with them. But you did agree with them
1
@DavidW-ng5zv yet as the other graciously wrote, the women generate more money due to winning far more (which you agreed with). Thus, why is it correct men losing money means they're paid more than women winning money?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv but thank you for finally noticing souvenir shops aren't how sports teams are paid
1
@DavidW-ng5zv if you believe the other was lying, you are fully entitled to believe so. But as she correctly stated women generate more money due to winning far more (which you agreed with), why is it correct men losing money means they're paid more than women winning money?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv yet you agreed with the other correctly stating women generate more money due to winning far more (which you agreed with). So why is it correct men losing money means they're paid more than women winning money?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv and again, thank you for finally noticing teams aren't paid by souvenir shops
1
@Olivia-bl8ez and yes, i graciously thank you for showing the other that the women's soccer teams wins and generates more revenue than the men's team
1
@DavidW-ng5zv yet again, you graciously agreed with the other correctly stating the women's soccer team generates more money due to winning more. You even tried to justify it. So why is it correct men losing money means they're paid more than women winning money?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv yet you graciously agreed with the other correctly stating women generate more money due to winning more. So why is it correct men losing money means they're paid more while women winning money means they're paid less?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv and again, thank you for noticing teams aren't paid by way of merchandizing or souvenir shops, but through wages. Still seems odd you tried to state women finally having healthcare like the men means that's why they're paid less
1
@DavidW-ng5zv yet you still graciously agreed when the other correctly stated women generate more money and win more. So why is it correct men losing money means they're paid more while women winning money means they're paid less because both now have healthcare? Seems odd the women's soccer team subsidizes the men's
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, you graciously agreed when the other correctly stated women win more and thus generate more money. So why is it correct men losing money means they're paid more while women winning money means they're paid less? Seems odd the women's soccer team subsidizes the men's team, and that you justified this by stating both have healthcare now
1
@DavidW-ng5zv per graciously agreeing with the other correctly stating women win more and generate more money, why is it correct men losing money means they're paid more while women winning money means they're paid less?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv Seems odd the women's soccer team subsidizes the men's team, and that you justified this by stating both have healthcare. Apparently, not only did the women receive lesser pay, they also had no healthcare, and when they sued because they actually did better than the men, you justified women still earning less because they now had healthcare (like the men).
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, thank you for graciously agreeing with the other correctly stating the women's soccer team win more and generate more money. Thus, why is it correct men losing money means they're paid more while women winning money means they're paid less?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv "you hit the nail on the head" again, seems unfair you noted the women's soccer team subsidizes the men's team and are still paid less because you and the other believe they both now have healthcare.
1
@Olivia-bl8ez and thank you for writing you believe the reason the women's soccer team generating more revenue leads to less pay is because they now have healthcare. Which the men already had.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thank you for graciously agreeing with the other correctly stating the women's soccer team wins more and generates more money. Thus, why is it correct the men's team losing money means they're paid more while the women's team winning money means they're paid less?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv "you hit the nail on the head" again, seems unfair you and the other noted the women's soccer team subsidizes the men's team yet are still paid less because women now have healthcare.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, thank you for graciously agreeing with the other correctly stating the women's soccer team wins more and generates more money. Thus, why is it correct the men's team losing money means they're paid more while the women's team winning money means they're paid less?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv "you hit the nail on the head" again, per agreeing with the other that the women's soccer team wins more and generates more money yet is still paid less, why justify this continuing to occur because both of you believe the women now have healthcare?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv "you hit the nail on the head" again, per agreeing with the other that the women's soccer team wins more and generates more money yet is still paid less, why justify this because both of you believe the women now have healthcare?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv "you hit the nail on the head" per agreeing with the other that the women's soccer team wins more and generates more money (yet is still paid less), why justify the women's team subsidizing the men's because you believe the women now have healthcare?
1
@divyanshsingh1078 interestingly enough, the women's US soccer team still generates more money. It helps they're ranked #1 in the world while the men's is seen as one of the worst. The women even successfully sued their employers for pay discrimination.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv "you hit the nail on the head" Again, per graciously agreeing with the other that the women's soccer team wins won and generates more money (yet is still paid less), why justify the women's team subsidizing the men's because you believe the women now have healthcare?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv "you hit the nail on the head" Per graciously agreeing with the other that the women's soccer team wins more and generates more money (yet is still paid less), why justify the women's team subsidizing the men's team because you believe the women now have healthcare?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv it's strange you pretend you didn't agree with the other stating the women's soccer team generates more revenue. Is this due to noticing that healthcare wouldn't justify the women still earning less?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv if that were true, you and the other wouldn't have tried to justify them being paid less while generating more on them now having healthcare. Thus, thank you for graciously agreeing with feminism
1
@DavidW-ng5zv you still attempted to justify the women generating more money by stating they now have healthcare. Thus, thank you for graciously agreeing with feminism and stating the women subsidize the men's soccer team
1
@DavidW-ng5zv "you hit the nail on the head" note you graciously agreeing with the other that the women's soccer team wins more and generates more money. So why justify the women's team subsidizing the men's team because you believe the women now have healthcare?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv "you hit the nail on the head" apologies, but you graciously agreed with the other that the women's soccer team wins more and generates more money. So why justify the women's team subsidizing the men's team because you believe the women now have healthcare?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv note you now try to backtrack. Thus, thank you for agreeing with feminism that women winning more and generating more money leads to lower pay. Still strange you and the other tried to justify this by saying it's because they asked for healthcare.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv note you now try to backtrack again. Thus, thank you for agreeing with feminism that women winning more and generating more money leads to lower pay. Still strange you and the other tried to justify this by saying it's because they asked for healthcare.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv note your backtracking. Thus, thank you for agreeing with feminism that women winning more and generating more money leads to lower pay. Still strange you and the other tried to justify this by saying it's because they asked for healthcare.
1
 @DavidW-ng5zv from what?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv then what dangerous situation caused the titanic to crash into the iceberg?
1
 @DavidW-ng5zv apologies, but you deflected. Again, what caused the situation which led the titanic to crash into the iceberg? Did the iceberg drive the titanic?
1
A team representing the nation should be one that wins, not one that loses. If the country prefers the team that constantly loses as opposed to the one that wins, eg, the women's soccer team, then something is deeply wrong.
1
@aoyenngoc502 that you believe winning and losing is relative in sports is exactly why i think there's something deeply wrong with society. And if "culture" is the reason the men's soccer team loses, then that makes it even more of a reason why the team that wins should have greater investments. I don't know why you think this doesn't apply to other sports, unless you're trying to argue there should be a baseline investment for all teams representing the nation.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv exactly, why would people prefer the team that constantly loses? Note you demonstrate the problem that people prefer to watch a team that constantly loses as opposed to one that constantly wins, eg, women's soccer team. Why should the team that constantly loses be the one that represents the nation?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv that's odd, why do you believe major trophies are the same as sunday league trophies? But thank you for noting those who win should be rewarded as opposed to those who lose.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv if you wish to believe sunday league trophies are the same as major league ones, then you are entitled to do so. Either way, thank you for noting those who win should be rewarded.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, if you wish to believe sunday league trophies are the same as major league trophies, you are entitled to do so. But thank you for noting victors should be rewarded, especially if they represent the nation.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv please note the issue with society that you justify people investing on those who lose instead of those who win because those who win are women. It does appear feminism is needed.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv then as you backtrack to stating major league trophies are more valuable than sunday league trophies, thank you for noting victors should be rewarded (especially if they represent the nation). Note the women's team has won major league trophies. Or who would you prefer to represent the nation, a team that wins or a team that loses?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, please note the issue with society that you prefer those who lose than those who win simply because those who win are women. Thus, thank you for showing feminism is needed.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv precisely, as you thus demonstrate that current society prefers to reward those who lose instead of win because it is women who win, thank you for showing feminism is needed so that the nation is represented by a team that wins.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, as you demonstrate that current society prefers to reward those who lose instead of win because it is women who win (even obtaining more major league trophies), thank you for showing feminism is needed so that the nation is represented by a team that wins.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv apologies, is the fact that you deny the women's soccer team has won more major league trophies mean you agree women should be paid more, ie, that one should reward victors?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thus my question. Again, is you denying that the women's soccer team wins more major league trophies mean you agree women should be paid more if they did win, ie, that one should reward victors? Because as i stated, winners should represent the nation
1
@DavidW-ng5zv then as you agree the women's soccer team wins more major league trophies than the men's, and agree winners should represent the nation, isn't that you accepting winners should be paid more?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv you can pretend soccer teams don't have championships if you wish, but by doing so thank you for showing the women win more. Seems feminism truly is needed if losing is something you wish rewarded simply because they're men.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, thank you for agreeing the women's soccer team wins more major league trophies than the men's, and that winners should represent the nation. Thus, isn't that you accepting winners should be paid more? It does seem feminism is needed if you believe a winning team should earn less simply due to being women
1
@DavidW-ng5zv you are entitled to believe a world cup is like a Sunday league game if you so wish
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, thank you for agreeing the women's soccer team wins more major league trophies than the men's and that winners should represent the nation. Thus, isn't that you accepting winners should be paid more? It truly seems feminism is needed if you and society believe winners should earn less simply because the men losing is preferred viewing.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv you are entitled to believe a world cup is like a Sunday league game if you so wish, but thank you for accepting the women have won more championships than the men.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, thank you for agreeing the women's soccer team wins more major league trophies than the men's and that winners should represent the nation. Thus, isn't that you accepting the women should be paid more as society should benefit reward those who win?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thank you for admitting you believe a world cup is like a Sunday league game, and thank you for accepting the women have won more championships than the men.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, thank you for agreeing the women's soccer team wins more major league trophies, championships, whatever other name you chose, than the men's, and that winners should represent the nation. Thus, isn't that you accepting the women should be paid more as society should reward those who win? Seems odd society prefers observing men lose than women win, is it not?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, thank you for agreeing the women's soccer team wins more than the men, and that winners should represent the nation. Thus, isn't that you accepting the women should be paid more as society should reward those who win? You are still entitled to believe Sunday league trophies are the same as global championships.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv exactly, do you believe society should reward winners or losers? If losers are preferred due to the winners being women, then it seems feminism truly is needed
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thus my question, do you believe losing is a superior product?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv as you believe losing is better than winning because the team that wins are women, thank you for showing exactly why feminism is needed in order to change society for the better
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, as you believe losing is better than winning because the team that wins are women, thank you for showing why feminism is needed to change society for the better
1
@DavidW-ng5zv precisely, as you believe losing merits great rewards, thank you for showing why feminism is needed
1
@DavidW-ng5zv precisely, if losing provides particularly great rewards, why shouldn't winning? Again thank you for showing feminism is needed
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thus my statement. As losing provides great rewards, why shouldn't winning? Again, thank you for showing feminism is needed to better society
1
@DavidW-ng5zv precisely, as losing provides lucre, why shouldn't winning? Thank you for showing why feminism is needed to better society
1
Then as the women's soccer team generates far more money, why aren't they paid more? Surely you don't believe the women's team having healthcare means they should be paid less?
1
 @DavidW-ng5zv precisely, how many times have the men's US soccer team qualifed for the world cup? Note the women's team always do.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thank you for accepting the men's US soccer team have failed at qualifying for the world cup. As the women constantly qualify and win world cups, why is it correct they are paid less for doing more?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, thank you for accepting the men's US soccer team has failed to qualify for the world cup. As the women not only qualify but constantly win world cups, why is it correct they are paid less for doing more?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv exactly, the men generate less money per failing to qualify for the world cup. Thus, why is it correct the women are paid less?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv what money if the men failed to qualify for the world cup while the women won it? Do you believe local games generate more than the world cup?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv then as you now pretend local games generate more money than world cups, thank you for showing why feminism exists to oppose the wage gap.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv as stated, if you wish to pretend local games generate more money than world cups, thank you for showing why feminism exists to oppose the wage gap.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, if you wish to pretend local games generate more money than world cups, thank you for showing why feminism exists to oppose the wage gap.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv precisely, as you wish to pretend local games generate more money than world cups, thank you for showing why feminism exists to oppose the wage gap.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, if you wish to pretend local games generate more money than world cups, thank you for showing why feminism exists to oppose the wage gap.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv as stated, if you wish to pretend local games generate more money than world cups, thank you for showing why feminism exists to oppose the wage gap
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thank you for accepting you wish to pretend local games generate more money than world cups. Thus, thank you for showing why feminism exists to oppose the wage gap
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, thank you for accepting you wish to pretend local games generate more money than world cups. Thus, thank you for showing why feminism exists to oppose the wage gap
1
@DavidW-ng5zv precisely, thank you for showing internationally broadcasted events make more than local ones. Per pretending otherwise, thank you for showing why feminism exists to oppose the wage gap.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv as you wish to continue pretending international events generate less revenue than local ones, i thank you for showing why feminism exists to oppose the wage gap. After all, the men's US soccer team didn't qualify for any of those while the women qualified for the world cup
1
@DavidW-ng5zv then as you wish to continue pretending international events generate less revenue than local ones, i thank you for showing why feminism exists to oppose the wage gap.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv correct, you sent various events which the men's US soccer team did not participate in but the women's team did. Thus, as you wish to continue pretending local events are more lucrative then international ones, thank you for showing why feminism exists to oppose the wage gap
1
@DavidW-ng5zv once again, per pretending internationally broadcast games aren't more lucrative than local games, thank you for showing feminism is needed to oppose the wage gap. After all, none of your written events included the men's US soccer team but they did include the women's soccer team.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv excellent, then i thank you for agreeing internationally broadcast games aren't more lucrative than local games. Thus, thank you for showing feminism is needed to oppose the wage gap as only the US women's team has participated in the world cup while none of earnings you gave apply to the men because they weren't there.
1
@happilysecular2323 that's weird, would you write what draft the USA has? Likewise, do you believe women are just as strong as men (per complaining about prison sentences)? Seems odd a few men going to prison is the same as all women being affected by roe v wade though
1
@happilysecular2323 apologies, but you deflected. Again, what draft do you mean? Was there a draft during the war with the middle east?
1
@happilysecular2323 then isn't that you taking the feminist position, ie, that men and women are equals, regardless of body strength? Do you then agree with feminism making it legal for women to fight in the military in 2016?
1
The wage gap in sports shows women can win more and even generate more money, eg, US women's soccer team, yet are still paid less. And society will still state the men deserve more because people enjoy seeing men lose more than women winning. This is fairly odd considering that the US men's team can't consistently qualify for the world cup while the women do.
1
 @DavidW-ng5zv apologies, would you then provide a timestamp where that is said?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv apologies, but you deflected. Again, why not provide a timestamp of feminists stating men and women are essentially clones of each other? But thank you for accepting only anti-feminists believe women shouldn't be financially independent
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thank you for admitting you have not seen the video. You are entitled to believe of me as you wish. Thus, why state feminists are the problem when only an anti-feminist stated women shouldn't be financially independent?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv that's odd. Do you attempt to change the subject because you disagree with the anti-feminists? If so, isn't that agreeing with feminism?
1
 @DavidW-ng5zv then you are changing the subject because you disagree with the anti-feminists? If so, thank you for agreeing with feminism
1
 @DavidW-ng5zv then why was it only an anti-feminist who said women shouldn't be financially independent?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv why is feminism hating men for wanting women to be financially independent? Note you even agree with this
1
 @DavidW-ng5zv thus my original question. Then why was it only an anti-feminist who said women shouldn't be financially independent?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv hence my query. How does feminism hate men if only an anti-feminist said women shouldn't be financially independent?
1
 @DavidW-ng5zv thus my query. How does feminism hate men if only an anti-feminist said women shouldn't be financially independent?
1
I promise you, most women are employed.
1
 @DavidW-ng5zv that's strange, why would getting jobs and some earning more than most men be hypergamy?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv and were they drafted during the middle east? Or what does selective service do?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thus my question, what does selective service do? Was it used during the war in the middle east?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv likewise, is it still illegal for women to fight in the military that you write of only strong men defending the nation?
1
Agreed
1
@DavidW-ng5zv precisely, thank you for agreeing anti-feminists say silly things. Thus, isn't that you agreeing with feminism? Seems odd you would then hate men.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv apologies, but we both agreed with the feminists that the anti-feminist said silly things. As you now state you don't hate men while agreeing with feminism, wouldn't that show feminism is correct?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv if women on average do nearly everything as nurses and work the same as men, why are women still paid less for doing the same job? However, it seems you backtrack on stating the wage gap isn't real to now attempting to justify it. Is this due to finding a source confirming it? Why not provide it?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv yet nurse are 90% women so we know they're in the highest paying areas, eg, nurse specialist and nurse CEO. So why are, for example, female nurse specialists earning less than male nurse specialists despite doing the same job and working the same hours? Again, it seems you backtrack over the wage gap being false. Is this due to your source confirming it? Would you provide it?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv male nurse are also in the lowest paying fields yet are also paid more than female nurses in lower paying fields. Again, why are the men paid more for doing the same thing for the same time frame? But again, you did backtrack on stating the wage gap is false. Why not provide your source to see why you did?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv thus my query. As we seem to agree that male nurses earn more than female nurses in the same position for the same time, why is that correct? Again, why not provide your source as you seem to have backtracked from stating the wage gap is false?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv seems odd i constantly asked for sources yet now you attempt to take me out of context.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv yet male nurses earn more than female nurses even when they're in the same position, place and working the same hours. So why is that correct? Why not provide your source as you backtracked from stating it doesn't exist to now justifying it?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, note we agree the wage gap is real, but you attempt to justify it by stating 90% of the staff don't work full shifts or found in the areas they're needed. Thus why i ask for a source, though it puzzles me why you believe me asking you this is strawmanning you
1
@DavidW-ng5zv Now you change to accepting the average earnings are lower for women after noticing women working in the same are for the same time leads to a wage gap. Thus why i request your source as you constantly backtrack
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, please provide your source as you not only backtracked form stating the wage is isn't real, you now accept the average earnings for female nurses working in the same position and for the same time as men means they earn less.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv note you backtracking again from stating the average earnings are less for female nurses in the same position and working the same time as male nurses, ie, you had agreed with feminists on the way age gap. Please provide your source as you constantly backtrack in order to justify the wage gap. Do you avoid this because upon noticing what you write it shows the wage gap is real?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv otherwise it would seem odd you believe the study is comparing nurse CEOs with nurse interns, and assuming 90% of the staff only works a half shift on average, in order to justify the wage gap.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv precisely, note you backtracking as the reason I ask for your source. You now agree the wage gap is real, and that it exists when male and female nurses work the same time and position. Thus, again, kindly provide your source due to your constant backtracking as your conclusions state the wage gap is real yet you still try to justify it
1
@DavidW-ng5zv or do you believe your source is comparing nurse CEOs with nurse interns, and assume 90% of the staff only works a half shift on average? Quite odd if so
1
@DavidW-ng5zv then if your source states a such, kindly provide it. I would greatly appreciate being able to read it as your constant changes are puzzling
1
@DavidW-ng5zv apologies, but you deflected. If your source states as such, kindly provide it as your constant changes are puzzling.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv note you now backtrack to stating your source is comparing the same time and workplace position instead of different workplace and work time Again, please provide your source as i wish to read what your source states
1
@DavidW-ng5zv apologies, but you deflected. As you wrote "my source shows", kindly provide it so we may see what it shows. You constantly change your position so it is quite necessary to do this.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv For example, note you backtracking from stating the wage gap is false to stating there is a wage gap between male and female nurses when we compare the same working hours and position.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv apologies, but you wrote "my source shows". Thus, kindly provide it so we may see what it shows as you constantly change your position
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, note you backtracking from stating the wage gap is false to stating there is a wage gap between male and female nurses when we compare the same working hours and position to then stating they're comparing different jobs and working hours.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv do you refuse to provide your source because it agrees with feminism?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv if your source proved feminism is wrong then kindly provide it. Again, do you avoid doing so because your constant backtracking meant it agreed with feminism?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, note you backtracking from stating the wage gap is false to stating there is a wage gap between male and female nurses when comparing the same working hours and position to later stating they're comparing different jobs and working hours as, apparently, 90% of the staff doesn't work a full shift on average
1
@DavidW-ng5zv i am uncertain what you mean as I see no article here. Kindly provide it so we may see how it proved feminism is wrong. It's quite odd you avoid doing this
1
@DavidW-ng5zv again, it's truly baffling you refuse to provide your source despite assuring that it proves the wage gap as false.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv apologies, but why not provide your source? If it proves feminism is wrong, surely it can only support you?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv apologies, but you deflected again. As you mistakingly stated you had already provided the source, i kindly ask you you provide it as no source is found here.
1
@DavidW-ng5zv truly odd you refuse to provide your source when you assure it proves feminism is mistaken
1
@DavidW-ng5zv if your source proved feminism wrong, then kindly provide it. Seems strange not providing a source means there is one that says feminism wrong. Or do you not provide it because it agrees with feminism?
1
@DavidW-ng5zv odd, why would I have a source proving you have a source? Again, kindly provide yours if you believe it disproves feminism
1