Lightor

Lots of women having high paid jobs doesn’t mean there aren’t more women than men being paid for the same work, or for similar amounts of effort.

I agree, I literally said “yes, there are women getting paid less for the same work” so I don’t know why you still think I’m missing the point. I’ve acknowledged that reality. I believe it’s you missing the point, honestly. Yes, there are tons of women who are paid more than men, it doesn’t mean there aren’t tons of men who get paid less than women too. That’s why I ended saying “We should address those struggles, all of them, and not just focus on one side.”

You talk about me wing one sided while thinking women doing fully time child care would have time to study to advance their career? Lol, no.

Lol yes. I mean, we just going to forget dads who raise children I guess.

Children take a large amount of time and resources to raise.

Yes, and there are men who raise children, too.

The way society is set up, women are expected and obliged to sacrifice time, men are expected to provide resources. In the mens case, this means pressure to advance, through promotion or a higher paid role. For women the pressure is to cut down on work and responsibilities at work to the detriment of their long term career.

This is a cop out. We are all adults and make our own decisions. Society isn’t forcing someone to stay home. You have a partner and you plan your life, doing what is right for you. Using what society expects as an excuse is just that, an excuse.

The mother could go back to work and the man could stay home just as easily. It is a choice made by the couple, framing it as anything else is dishonest.

You talk about men having to sacrifice a preferred career ro take a better paid one. How do you think it goes for the woman’s preferred career while full time caring for kids? The end result is both parties would lose their preferred careers but in the man’s case he ends up wealthier.

Yes, wealthier. That’s the only difference? Really? Sure, with possibly years taken off his life, and miserable every day. See, that’s what I mean, you only look at it from one side. You don’t seem to even think about the reality that the man could literally be working himself to death, or that he works all day to support children he never sees, or that he forces himself to work if he’s sick or injured so the family can survive. You think “well he has more money so he’s better.” Really? A man working two jobs and knows nothing else, too tired to enjoy life, is doing worse than the stay-at-home mom raising the child and getting to see them grow? Yes, it’s still a hard job to be a stay-at-home mom, but let’s not pretend like it’s the same. Have you ever actually thought about the other side of this situation before, because it seems like you haven’t?

Either way, at the end of the day, the couple makes their own choices for them and no one else. Any societal pressures or BS like that should be shot down on both sides.

It’s to men’s financial benefit to have to provide? Having to work jobs that pay what you need doing things you hate because the career you really want doesn’t pay enough to raise a kid?

I feel like you have a very one sided view of this situation. I could say the woman at home could also have time to educate herself and grow while the man could be stuck in a dead end factory job working himself to death to provide. Or maybe even working two jobs. But you just see it as the guy works more so that must mean he’s doing better. No.

And yes, there is women getting paid less for the same work. But as you even admitted, there are some men who get paid less for the same work too. I’ve also seen women who are nice and pretty get promoted over more qualified men. The same way I’ve seen guys who are buddy buddy get promotions over well qualified women. But you seem to be only looking at one side of the problem. Both struggle in different ways is my point. We should address those struggles, all of them, and not just focus on one side.

Women get childcare imposed on them at the cost of their careers and income.

OK, I can acknowledge that. That’s a struggle. I feel that man are often shouldered with financially providing for the child. But different struggles, all that should be sorted out before becoming pregnant if possible.

Nurses take schooling, and men get paid less. Trades take schooling, and men get paid more. It seems like there is just general inequality that needs do be addressed. Not saying has it harder or not, just seems like it’s a spead and should be addressed in general.

I’ve seen many men in my current career take paternity leave though. I’ve also worked with a single dad. I’m not saying these aren’t a struggle but they aren’t wholey unique to women. If anything, women are legally protected while pregnant, a guy is not of he starts to struggle with a child birth.

I’m open to the idea what women make less or whatever, I’d just wanna see the numbers because this line of reasoning doesn’t really seem that persuasive.

Do you know what news is? Interesting things that happen. The boss of country music expressing hate for the right is very interesting.

Removed by mod

I mean he seems like he wants to use the military to do a lot of things. Take over Greenland, martial law, etc. It’ll be hard with a shrinking military.

Yeah, Nintendo seems to think they are untouchable. They can do whatever, charge whatever, not even innovate anymore with the Switch 2, and attack fans. I’m done with Nintendo, the only way I’ll ever play any of their games is on the high seas.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

I never rejected anything, maybe try reading again and this time not just seeing what you want. And what was successful before doesn’t mean it will be successful today. People just don’t understand context or nuance. That’s you dog.

Welcome to .ml, you’ll get the jokes now.

Yeah, it wasn’t one guy on Reddit lol. Why haven’t you started the revolution?

And y’all wonder why people rag on .ml.

That doesn’t even make sense…

Jesus what a mess of a sentence. You really tried to hamfist that one in there.

How does one go about building their own government/economic system?

I think UBI would actually solve a lot of issues, the creative communities’ financial struggle being one of them.

The cases where large companies do win won’t make news though. “Large companies settles with individual” isn’t really headline material now, is it?

Ok, and not every time a person wins there’s a headline either, this is a moot point.

Also, small companies != people. Neither me nor you are a company and even small companies have significantly more resources available to them than someone who just created the next Lord of the Rings and didn’t see a penny.

So, what is your point? People can win against big companies, even over IP. It has been done before, if you want I can list a bunch for you. I just researched to make sure I wasn’t off base. You don’t always have to have the most money to win. You know why? Because of IP law, the very thing you want to destroy.

There are significantly more companies who would rather start killing politicians than see IP law gone. They rake in billions of shareholder value, much moreso than any AI company out there.

Ok, and? Because a company makes money due to X doesn’t automatically make X a bad thing. I’ve not seen one good plan laid out on how destorying IP would help the common man, it doesn’t.

I never argued that copyright law is necessarily wrong or bad just because we went millenia without it.

No, but you are clearly implying something with “Copyright didn’t exist for millenia. It didn’t stop authors from writing books.” This ignores that those authors couldn’t have their work downloaded and spread across the globe in minutes. You are bringing this up to prove a point, but give how much things have changes over the last few hundred years, the point falls flat. It is irrelevant once you look at all the nuance and reasons why and how they were able to create.

What I am arguing is that these laws do not allow people to create intellectual works as people in the past were no less artistic than we are today - maybe even moreso.

They do allow them. They allow them to make money off of their art. Back in the day you didn’t have an interconnected global economy, you didn’t have to worry about retirement or your 401k, of course it was easier back then, late stage capitalism didn’t set in. But IP laws are what protect creators these days, so they can take a year off of work and write a book and still be able to eat.

Have you seen the impact of IP law on science? It’s horrible. No researcher sees any money from their works - rather they must pay to lose their “rights” and have papers published. Scientific journals have hampered scientific progress and will continue to do so for as long as IP law remains. I would not be surprised if millions of needless deaths could have been prevented if only every medical researcher had access to research.

Yes, absolutely a good point. But because a system is broken is not a reason to get rid of it. The legal system is broken and millionaires just get away with crimes, should we just get rid of all the laws? No. We should work to make them better.

IP law serves solely large companies and independent artists see a couple of breadcrumbs.

Source needed. Because this is a bold claim, that based on what I can find, is not true. People sell IP to companies all the time, so yes they then benefit from it, but the creator of the IP gets paid.

You brought up how lives have probably been lost because of scientific journal IP. How many lives do you think will be lost when big pharma realizes there’s no money in creating a vaccine for a new disease? Who is making that investment? The govt? lol

Abolishing IP law - or at the very least limiting it to a couple of years at most - would have hardly any impact on small artists. It would directly impart them! The small artist who had a good beat or came up with some slick lyrics would have them jacked. Every production company would be scrapping small artists looking for what they could take or steal, with 0 impact. This also goes with authors and writing books. How can they sign a book deal when a publisher can’t guarantee it won’t just get copied and given away? They now have no reason to pay authors.

They do not benefit from IP law - so why should we keep it for the top 0.1% of artists who do?

They ABOLUSTLY do benefit from it, you’re just looking at it as a “less money needs less protection” lens which I highly disagree with. A small artist can have a lot going for them and miss their opportunity because they were stolen. Or they were sampled and never for paid but the person who sampled them got rich. I mean there are dozens of ways to see why this would be a problem. The least of which is, why even make music or movies anymore? If every movie and song ever created can be legally pirated, companies just stop making them.

IP laws help everyone. EVERYONE. Just because companies make money off of them doesn’t make them bad. Just because small creators don’t make a lot of money doesn’t mean they shouldn’t own what they create. Everyone in favor of this just seems to want stuff for free without realizing the impact of that choice, it’s extremely shortsighted.

I never argued that copyright law is necessarily wrong or bad just because we went millenia without it.

The problem is a lot of Americans want this, they’re cheering.