Since equal pay for equal work has been enforced by most western nations for over thirty years now (equal pay for equal work in terms of it being illegal to discriminate against women by paying men more for doing the SAME job.)
A NEW scam has been dreamt up by feminists in order to win extra privileges for women.
This is called equal pay for equal WORTH and apparently this subtle twist has been tested under the existing equal pay act in the UK and found to be a 'correct' interpretation of the meaning of the act!
The implication of this is a huge bill for taxpayers up and down the country because for example it has been successfully argued that 'dinner ladies' (people usually women who serve school meals to school children) street labourers and 'binmen'(i.e. rubbish collectors) are all jobs of 'equal worth'! No one in all this pc gone MAD FIASCO seems to have had the sense to simply point out a very pertinent fact i.e. that it is already ILLEGAL to discriminate against an applicant on the basis of their sex.
This being the case when those dinner ladies started their WHINING why weren't they simply shown the door and told in no uncertain terms that if those jobs are 'similar' and of 'equivalent worth' then why did they NOT apply for them??

some relevant links from the UK on this issue:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/6360253.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/1515501.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/6293625.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1086245.ece
http://www.carverslaw.co.uk/html/news_tt_14-10-2006.asp

FEMPLEX = what feminism is REALLY about...

Someone at the MGTOW forum has come up with this new term "FEMPLEX" and I LIKE it!I like it because it (accurately IMO) suggests the pathology inherent in feminism esp. as it is actually practiced. In fact this morning I used the term without any explanation in a commentary to an Adam Smith blog post. I think we could do much to popularise this term by using it both in our offline AND online lives. Contrast this with the word 'feminazi' a term I have never been entirely comfortable with because of it's divisive and extreme connotations. Sure I suppose you could justify the use of the term 'feminazi' to describe feminists (or perhaps feminists of just a certain 'type') but 'newbies' or the less well informed to sexual politics may be so turned off or offended by the the term that you lose their attention before any explanation can be given to 'justify' the use of the term. I don't think this is the case with FEMPLEX yet it carries as it's definition an almost equally negative message about the REAL nature of feminism and it's practitioners. Here is the link to the nativity of this new term:- Thread topic title = "CF:There is More to Feminism Than Feminism"http://mgtow.net/ipbforum/index.php?showtopic=10704I would suggest using the term without explanation also i.e. make other readers ASK then simply give them the url that explains the term in detail!

Literary Darwinism - Micheal Flood isn't going to like this!!!

Micheal Flood isn't going to like this fledgling movement in literary and academic circles.For example the feminist deconstructionists generally ASSUME that human behaviour is wholly influenced by cultural influences only - literary darwinism tears apart this assumption by introducing a degree of scientific method notably missing from the deconstructionists. I first became aware of this newish movement courtesy of this months New Scientist (I bought the paper copy) - you can read a precis of the article here:-http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19325931.500
If you want to read the whole article I'm afraid you would have to subscribe, on the plus side for UK residents they have a deal where for £2.95 (sterling) you can get 4 issues of New Scientist and access to all online content!! They have links on the page for deals for other countries so if you're not from the UK it might be worth while checking out.Here is the short exerpt from the New Scientist website:-

Article Preview

Reading fiction with Darwin's eyes

03 March 2007

Jonathan Gottschall

Magazine issue 2593

You cannot understand a story without understanding human nature, so literary critics should take their lead from evolutionary biology, argues Jonathan Gottschall

MARXIST, radical feminist, Foucauldian, deconstructionist, post-colonial and queer. It reads like the fight card for an ideological battle royal. In fact, these are some of the major schools of thought in literary criticism from the past 40 years - and they have much in common. Central to these and all other approaches to understanding literature that are influenced by post-structuralism is the idea that there is no innate human nature. Nature is nurture, or, put another way, our nature is simply to spoon up whatever culture happens to feed us - and we are what we eat. Understanding a story is ultimately about understanding the human mind. The primary job of the literary critic is to pry open the craniums of characters, authors and narrators, climb inside their heads and spelunk through the bewildering complexity within to figure out what makes them tick. Yet, in doing this, literary scholars have ...The complete article is 2496 words long.

The New York Times has also published a lengthy and detailed article that is fairly sympathetic to the movement (which somewhat surprised me considering that literary darwinism is a potential major threat to academic feminism).

Here is the link to the NYT article which in this case you can read in full for free!

The Literary Darwinists By D. T. MAX

Published: November 6, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magazine/06darwin.html?ei=5088&en=cfc7fcb6b8e82857&ex=1288933200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Just an idea..

With so many 'feral youths' on the streets these days who have a very twisted sense of 'honour','respect' and 'morality' (I am using quotes for those words because I'd wager any reasonable person wouldn't recognise the same interpretation that these youths give them) maybe it's time to moot a different strategy for transmitting guidance to these anti-social misfits.
For example even advertisers have been adventerous of late with tecniques such a 'viral' marketing whereby a product or an idea to be associated with a particular product is exposed to the public not just throught the traditional mass marketing outlets (TV,Radio,Press and billboards etc) but by more surreptious methods such as getting buskers to play some new songs (about to be sold on a large scale) on the underground\subway in order to generate a 'street buzz' about the product. I suppose another way of putting it is 'manufactured cool' - anyone catching my drift yet? Some of you are certainly smart enough but for the rest I'll be a little more explicit - what we need is a practical strategy for creating a 'street buzz' that being honorable, ethical and having at least enough humility so that they can even grasp the concept of respect is surely an experiment worth making.Don't ask me for any more than just the SEED of an idea on this - I am no Matt O'Connor but I am sure there are others who have that ability out there!