Chimney Sweeps;

1700 to the 1800's

Boys as young as four climbed hot flues that could be as narrow as 81 square inches (9x9 inches or 23x23 cm). Work was dangerous and they could get jammed in the flue, suffocate or burn to death. As the soot was a carcinogen, and as the boys slept under the soot sacks and were rarely washed, they were prone to Chimney Sweeps Cancer.

The Mines (Prohibition of Child Labour Underground) Act 1900 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The statute prevented boys under the age of thirteen from working, or being (for the purposes of employment), in an underground mine.[1]

An estimated 3000 boys were affected by the new law,[1] which was passed on 30 July 1900.

So it is only in relative recent history have the laws in regard to child labor changed to protect children from exploitation.

For many centuries in the past, it was seen a OK to use child labor.

Wolly

Killarney has not been able to defend the idea that there is or has ever been a "gender imbalance" - which she doesn't define - because she has been unable to defend any tenet of any feminist theory, and has simply vacated the forum being faced with questions which prove her wrong either way she answers them. This is not because they are trick questions: it's because her theory is wrong, as proved by the fact that not even she agrees with it, otherwise she'd answer the questions posed.

When I was young I read many feminist classics and was much influenced by them. But re-reading them later, I was amazed at how I swallowed them so uncritically without noticing the glaring defect in all of them.

It's not factually true that male and female are "equal", because of
1. the difference between people in general
2. the sex-specific differences between male and female.

Once you start with this factually untrue premise, this then infects and invalidates the logic and ethics that are derived from it. That is why no-one is able to defend any tenet of any feminist theory, as we have just seen with the acquiescence of the feminists. In a word, it's false. That's why they keep contradicting themselves in everything they do and say, for example:
- saying that discrimination on the ground of sex should be against the law, but sexual preference is a human right; straight-out contradiction
- saying that patriarchy is the source of sexist oppression, but relying implicitly on the dreaded patriarchal state to provide *both* patriarchal *and* feminist laws and policies supporting and privileging women
- saying that nature-given sex-specific gender stereotypes are an abuse of human rights for women, but a "responsibility" for men and should be enforced by prison.
- advocating the use of aggressive violence to get what they want from the opposite sex
- saying feminism is about gender equality, which is a completely unhistorical statement. The name says it all. Feminism has never been about gender equality, but about getting benefits for females.

Quote"
When I was young I read many feminist classics and was much influenced by them. But re-reading them later, I was amazed at how I swallowed them so uncritically without noticing the glaring defect in all of them.

Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 18 December 2015 9:24:20 PM
Unquote"

I did that as well, however something felt not quite right, and when I first started reading material that contradicted their dogma, claims, beliefs.

My first mental reaction was that this recent material was not true. But emotionally it made sense.

The more I looked at how research was controlled and manipulated the less trust I had for feminist research. Typically their research was full of sophistry, rather than factual.

I think the author of Backlash was very perceptive and she knew that men would eventually start comparing notes and then start challenging feminism.

For this the internet has been a godsend, meaning that men who think that they are the only ones to feel this way are not alone, that there are many people both male and female who challenge feminist ideology and dogma.

That's why feminists have never given a sh!t about the unequally high rate of male deaths at work, even while complaining women can't get nice clean safe indoor jobs in the opinion industry!

So please don’t pander to their nauseating hypocrisy.

Point out that male and female are not factually equal, and therefore not the same and
the feminists say “Equal doesn’t mean the same.”

But here they themselves prove that the whole ideology is false to the core.

For if equal does not mean the same, then there is no reason why there should be the same number of female as male opinion journalists, is there? There is no reason why female pay should be the same as male pay for the same work: the equal pay legislation should be repealed because “equal doesn’t mean the same”. They contradict their own major premise.

But if equal does mean the same, then women are not *in fact* the same as men, therefore *cannot* be equal, and there is no reason why people should not *value* their differences differently, and there’s nothing wrong with it - just as there's nothing wrong with sexual preference. There's no reason to pretend they are the same, let alone be forced to pretend they are. So on this feminist argument, they must admit there’s no justification for their hypocritical ideology.

A common definition of feminism that it’s about “social, economic, and political equality”. But how can men and women be “socially” equal without equal numbers of maternity hospitals for men? Why should be people treat men as if they have babies, or women as if they don’t?

The reason for the absurdity is obvious. The costs of reproduction unequally fall to women, and not as a 'social construct', either. Women don’t have babies as a matter of gender, they have them as a matter of sex.

Feminism is only an attempt to use the state's legal monopoly of aggression to obtain special benefits and privileges for women on account of their vaginas, unequally paid for by men in toil and blood, and falsely called “equality”.

I love it when feminist claim that it has always been a man's world;

Quote

It was during the times of the Tudors that the use of torture reached its height in England. Under Henry VIII, torture was frequently used. When Edward and Mary were on the throne, torture wasn't used as much. However, when Elizabeth took the throne, torture was used more than in any other period of history. Queen Elizabeth thought that treason was one of the worst crimes that could be committed, and the majority of incidents of torture were for reasons of high treason. Lords and high officials were exempted, and woman were rarely put through torture.

Unquote

Notice that in a man's world women were very rarely tortured.

JKJ

You have a habit of posing aggressive and irrelevant questions of posters you disagree with, and claiming victory when they either refuse to engage you or fail to answer to your satisfaction. Your demand that Killarney ‘provide proof of the activism you have personally taken against the much higher death rate of men at work. Have you sought "gender equality" in that, and if not, why not?’ is a particularly egregious example.

If Killarney has withdrawn from this thread, I guess it is because she has tired of this tactic, not because you have won the argument.

Equal does not mean the same. Two five dollar notes are not the same as one ten dollar note, but they are equal. Two people doing the same job to the same level of competence for the same employer are equal and should be paid the same, even if their gender, skin colour, religion or favourite footy teams mean that they are different.