Post: #26

(12-17-2016 04:33 PM)Vicious Wrote:  I don't see the problem here, any workplace that encourages women to quit their career, go be a homemaker and look after the family should be applauded.

Fixed it for you.

Economic incentives are a hideous reason to have kids. Can you imagine what kind of mother this sort of thing will attract?

"Shut up you brat! The only reason you exist is because you bumped my salary up a notch! Don't make me give you away to an orphanage! Go watch tv or something and don't bother me, just because I carried you in my womb for 9 months doesn't mean I have to be your mother!"

Post: #27

(12-17-2016 03:49 PM)LikeABaller Wrote:  This forum is very interesting. People are very confused here, let me explain why.

You guys say feminism is cancer, and women and men arent equal.
But then everyone here gets pissed when the women doesn't pay for their share of the date.

You guys are worried about the declining fertility rates
When the employers offer affirmative action to increase it then you're against it

You say women are irrational and shouldn't be able to vote.

Islam doesn't give women the right to vote or even be a witness because they are irrational, yet Islam is the most despised religion in this forum.

Most people including I are against sluts and like traditional women.

But then people start opening topics on how many women they wanna bang. If you're gonna bang that amount of women obviously theres gonna be a lot of sluts.


Very conflicting opinions...

So what do you guys really want?

Duh! Govt policies should encourage women to bear children with men who will support them for the whole time it takes the children to grow up, and should protect men's access to their children. Also, remove artificial subsidies for women who aren't bearing children.

After all, if we don't encourage women to bear children, who will we get to do it?

Post: #28

(12-17-2016 03:49 PM)LikeABaller Wrote:  You guys say feminism is cancer, and women and men arent equal.
But then everyone here gets pissed when the women doesn't pay for their share of the date.

This refers to the double standard that is ever present: we operate in a feminized society wherein women demand "equality". But what it amounts to is a sense of entitlement where women demand all of the benefits that feminism promises while avoiding the responsibilities that go along with their precious equality.

(12-17-2016 03:49 PM)LikeABaller Wrote:  You guys are worried about the declining fertility rates
When the employers offer affirmative action to increase it then you're against it

We don't need more laws to fix the fertility rate, in fact we need less anti-male legislation. For example: current alimony and child support laws which adamantly favor women.

(12-17-2016 03:49 PM)LikeABaller Wrote:  You say women are irrational and shouldn't be able to vote.

Islam doesn't give women the right to vote or even be a witness because they are irrational, yet Islam is the most despised religion in this forum.

Numerous studies have proven that politics and legislation are found to be entirely uninteresting to most women (reference chateau heartiste as your wiki on anything and everything that emperically refutes current social paradigms). And that women have a tendency to vote for candidates based on their appearance, I.e. who's "hotter". Yes, that's irrational.

(12-17-2016 03:49 PM)LikeABaller Wrote:  Most people including I are against sluts and like traditional women.

But then people start opening topics on how many women they wanna bang. If you're gonna bang that amount of women obviously theres gonna be a lot of sluts.

Sluts exist, period. Men have a natural disposition for more than one partner, women do not. We don't want to marry a slut because we don't want to be cucked. We fuck to fulfill our biological nature, so we search for sluts. We marry and commit our time and resources to chaste women to ensure the survival of our genetic legacy. The problem arises when the majority of women are brainwashed into celebrating sluttery.

Since I've answered all your questions, I have one for you:
Are you a woman? Because the tone and verbiage of your posts certainly suggest it.

Post: #29

(12-17-2016 06:47 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

(12-17-2016 04:57 PM)AlphaRN Wrote:  

(12-17-2016 04:33 PM)Vicious Wrote:  I don't see the problem here, any workplace that encourages women having kids should be applauded.

Women having children isn't the entire problem. Unmarried women having them is the problem.

Increasing birth rates is a noble goal. Increasing birth rates of women that shouldn't be having kids in the first place is not.

The vast majority of kids born in the western world are by couples in some form of stable relationships. Why focus on a small minority just because they might reap the same benefits?

The stats dont back that up. According to John Hopkins 58% of this generation has been born out of wedlock. At the same time, according to Pew, 40% of children live in a single-parent household.

That is not a ``vast majority.''

Likewise, there has been a 48% increase in single women between the ages of 35-39 having children, and a 30% increase in unmarried women between 40-44 having children. (Both stats cited to the CDC)

I think my point is valid, and backed by actual statistics.

Post: #30

(12-17-2016 03:01 PM)david.garrett84 Wrote:  Where the fuck can I start with this lunacy? Bear in mind that in Australia the maternity leave on offer, government-funded, is six months of your salary if your salary is up to $75,000 per year. Something like that.

Oh, it gets better, Mr Garrett. Because you haven't yet explored the wonderful world of 'double dipping'.

You see, the maternity leave on offer, government-funded, is often not the only maternity leave a woman has available. The 6 months at half salary is just the government's handout.

Most large employers -- in particular, State government ones -- have their own paid maternity leave schemes as well. Depending on the employer you can pull another 14 weeks at your ordinary salary in paid parental leave.

In order to access both, you simply have to be careful about precisely what dates you choose to access these forms of leave. You don't necessarily have to take paid parental leave right away. You can do it within 1 year of having your kid ... let's say, 6 months after your government-funded maternity leave runs out. I have seen cadres of female employees sit around for literally 6 hours working out precisely when to dip in and out of the different schemes to afford them maximum benefit for not working.

This is what they call "double dipping", and because it's post-Wall, post-30 mothers who use it, all the government's murmuring about doing something about it isn't going to come to jack shit. Ways will be set up to get around it.

(12-17-2016 03:49 PM)LikeABaller Wrote:  You guys are worried about the declining fertility rates
When the employers offer affirmative action to increase it then you're against it

High fertility rates without meaningful raising of those kids by two parents doesn't mean jack shit. Example A: what's become of the black community in America.

This is not affirmative action. It is encouraging women not to stay at home and raise their kids for the first, vital, formative years of their lives. Now let's ask ourselves something else: why stop at five years?

Because that's roughly around when the kid first starts going to school. Also known as, when life gets a shitload more expensive even if you're putting your kids into a government school. All of a sudden your fucking pay rate -- which you have spent up to and beyond -- drops by ten grand. At that point you are tied to the employer's hamster wheel because where are you going to go that offers ten grand more than you earn at the moment, especially after five years doing a half-arsed job while you battle to keep your kids going?

Also, I would be very interested in seeing where this asshole's investments are. The only bodies that stand to gain out of this are early childhood centres, the sort of miserable disinfectant-smelling prisons that little babies are tossed into at four months of age while their idiot mothers go back to chasing the almighty dollar.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #31

Quote: The rates in many countries of the Western world are even worse than in the USA - see the link in my post for an example.

Your source only reflect marriages. I said "stable relationships".

Even if we disregard this, kids born to wed parents are still the majority, per your own source, so you're just arguing semantics over the "vast" majority part.

Post: #32

(12-19-2016 03:20 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Most large employers -- in particular, State government ones -- have their own paid maternity leave schemes as well. Depending on the employer you can pull another 14 weeks at your ordinary salary in paid parental leave.

I've met female doctors who actually plan to work during their maternity leave by doing locums.

In other words, they get maternity pay and an extra salary.

I'm pretty sure female doctors are not the only ones who do this type of thing. Why actually take maternity leave to do maternity stuff when you can hire a nanny and make a lot of extra cash on the side?

Post: #33

(12-19-2016 10:43 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

Quote: The rates in many countries of the Western world are even worse than in the USA - see the link in my post for an example.

Your source only reflect marriages. I said "stable relationships".

Even if we disregard this, kids born to wed parents are still the majority, per your own source, so you're just arguing semantics over the "vast" majority part.

Where is your source on this? Again,I showed that 58% of children are born out of wedlock. So no, they are not a majority at all.

Post: #34

(12-17-2016 06:20 PM)david.garrett84 Wrote:  

(12-17-2016 04:17 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  I've got mixed feelings. Their motivations are terrrible, but the actual result will be more Western births and more women quitting to raise kids at home.

Did you actually read the article? They're paying female scientists $10,000 more than men per year TO WORK if they have kids.

So, you have a male scientist who earns $80,000. The female scientist with kids will get paid $90,000 per year for the same job until a kid is five years old.

It will NOT get her to raise the kid at home.

The result of such women working is usually handing their children off to strangers in daycare to raise their children for them. Fraught with all the problems concurrent with such a choice.

Post: #35

It's not my money so I don't care really, f this was a Government program I'd would say it isn't wise, let us see if this company experiment works.

My opinion is that it flops because no matter how many red carpets, pearls, and gold you throw at a woman she will never be happy and always want more. Plus the fact that women don't want the those types of jobs. How some go into science field's in school and never end up doing much with it by choice.

A woman's dream jobs are in freelance, a nuturing related job, or some type of job where can be fawned over with attention and status. Think of jobs that fall in those areas and women dominate them all.

All these ideas were likely proposed by women and it will be interesting to see if the program still flops. This reminds me of that Seattle CEO who attempted to pay everyone the same salary and his firm nearly imposed from stagnant productivity and him getting talented staff to eventually quit. I see the same misguided steps here but let them try, let them burn their own money. Oh well.

Post: #36

(12-18-2016 04:31 PM)AlphaRN Wrote:  

(12-17-2016 06:47 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

(12-17-2016 04:57 PM)AlphaRN Wrote:  

(12-17-2016 04:33 PM)Vicious Wrote:  I don't see the problem here, any workplace that encourages women having kids should be applauded.

Women having children isn't the entire problem. Unmarried women having them is the problem.

Increasing birth rates is a noble goal. Increasing birth rates of women that shouldn't be having kids in the first place is not.

The vast majority of kids born in the western world are by couples in some form of stable relationships. Why focus on a small minority just because they might reap the same benefits?

The stats dont back that up. According to John Hopkins 58% of this generation has been born out of wedlock. At the same time, according to Pew, 40% of children live in a single-parent household.

That is not a ``vast majority.''

Likewise, there has been a 48% increase in single women between the ages of 35-39 having children, and a 30% increase in unmarried women between 40-44 having children. (Both stats cited to the CDC)

I think my point is valid, and backed by actual statistics.

Not that I doubt you, but without links this is a bad post.

Also I caution all men to be very careful in looking at how the stats are collected, they can say a "father" is present even if he's not the biological father.

Post: #37

(12-17-2016 03:49 PM)LikeABaller Wrote:  This forum is very interesting. People are very confused here, let me explain why.

You guys say feminism is cancer, and women and men arent equal.
But then everyone here gets pissed when the women doesn't pay for their share of the date.

None of the consistent alphas on this board give a shit if the woman pays or not.

Quote:You guys are worried about the declining fertility rates
When the employers offer affirmative action to increase it then you're against it

Women shouldn't be getting government funded degrees in the first place

Quote:You say women are irrational and shouldn't be able to vote.

Islam doesn't give women the right to vote or even be a witness because they are irrational, yet Islam is the most despised religion in this forum.

No one said Islam does everything wrong. In my opinion, how they treat women, with the exception of the Ninja Costumes, excessive beating of wives, and polygamy, is correct.

Polygamy is destructive of the gene pool and creates massive imbalances in the sexual marketplace, similar to what exists in our "Alpha-take-all" slutland society the West currently is.

How Christianity treated women for its first 1500 years is what most men on this board want.

Quote:Most people including I are against sluts and like traditional women.

But then people start opening topics on how many women they wanna bang. If you're gonna bang that amount of women obviously theres gonna be a lot of sluts.

Wrong, you're confusing cause and effect. Women and their families are the gatekeepers to sex. Families have no more power because men have no power in families (can be kicked out at will, daughter can call cops on her Dad even). No patriarchal power = lots of sluts.

Post: #38

(12-21-2016 03:48 AM)kosko Wrote:  This reminds me of that Seattle CEO who attempted to pay everyone the same salary and his firm nearly imposed from stagnant productivity and him getting talented staff to eventually quit.

That was likely a play to defuse his brother's lawsuit who was another major stakeholder in the company. He claimed it was independent but the court document dates contradict his "memory."

More here if you want to read about it.