By: Shawn Alli
Posted: October 10, 2017 (on http://www.shawnalli.com/)
Religion
Feminism
Atheism & Science
The Justice/Legal System
Military & Police
Politics
Academia & Philosophers
Sports
Hollywood
Silicon Valley
Western-European (WE) Society
Religion
Feminism
Atheism & Science
The Justice/Legal System
Military & Police
***Taken out, due to steemit limit, please see original article:
Politics
This is where things get interesting. Not because of the lack of women in politics, or the lack of women at the very top (Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel). It's because when a woman is fully empowered, her style of governance will most likely be different. I say most likely because we don't really know. Angela Merkel is the leader of the German Christian Democratic Party. Being the leader of a sexist religious party is not empowerment.
And turning women into men (not literally) also isn't female empowerment. Madeline Albright is such an example. And I'm sure Hilary Clinton (if she had won) would have been another example. Contrary to what you may believe, these two women don't represent female empowerment.
To be fair, I'm not saying that female empowerment represents a nurturing or peaceful government. But due to GSIG conditioning of women, it's difficult to ascertain the correct qualities of women in terms of governance.
Madeline Albright and Hilary Clinton are the products of Plato's ideals for women. Contrary to what you may believe, Plato doesn't really advocate for the equality of women. He believes in conditioning women to act like men and be more rational. Don't believe me about Plato? See for yourself:
...since humans have a twofold nature, the superior kind should be such as would from then on be called 'man.' [65]
And if a person lived a good life throughout the due course of this time he would at the end return to his dwelling place in his companion star, to live a life of happiness that agreed with his character. But if he failed in this, he would be born a second time, now as a woman. [66]
A woman's natural potential for virtue is inferior to a man's, so she's proportionally a greater danger, perhaps even twice as great. [67]
Unfortunately, ancient, medieval, and modern philosophers have played a significant role in suppressing of female empowerment (via GSIG scripts). Hence, my reasons for attempting to undo this conditioning is both personal and for philosophical reasons.
But the question remains, what is the correct form of governance by a fully empowered woman? Or, is the answer relative to a particular era with particular conditioning? Would a fully empowered woman create a better world for both sexes? Will men follow such a woman or attempt to sabotage her leadership?
One of the reasons why many women don't get involved in politics is because they don't usually have the stomach for bullsht, especially bullsht created by sexist men. Female candidates running for political office are aware of how their errors are magnified, with men being forgiven for their transgressions.
And besides, Margaret Thatcher came from humble beginnings. In the end, she became a monster to low-income workers. Unless women play the game, they'll be ostracized from everyone. Hence, the low amount of women in politics. Of course, women are screwed either way. If they don't want to play the bullsh*t games, they're a bitch. If they play the game, they're a sellout to women. Either way, men win.
Aside from my lack of answers, feminists have also struggled with such questions. In our current false democracy, the issue is about what oligarch we get to elect. In the 2016 US election, feminists, along with Hollywood and Wall Street, mobilize everything they have for Hilary Clinton.
It's hilarious, that despite all of that, they still lose the executive office, the House, and the Senate. In their zealous support for Clinton, feminists shun women who vote for Trump.
But trust is a big thing for people. And I think that it's more true for women. Generally speaking, at our current level of development and GSIG conditioning, if a woman doesn't trust their candidate, they won't vote for them, no matter how bad the other candidate may seem. And that's one reason why Clinton loses. Another reason is her demonization of Bill Clinton's alleged rape victims. [68] [69] [70] [71]
Contrary to what you may believe, WE society is run on trust.
WE governments trust you to file your taxes at the end of the year.
You trust that the car beside you isn't going to intentionally cause an accident.
You trust that pilots won't intentionally crash a plane.
You trust that your car will start when you turn it on.
You trust that when you go to sleep at night you'll wake up in the morning.
You trust that when your children go to school, you'll see them when school is done for the day.
There are no guarantees for any of this. It's all based on trust.
But the question remains. What is the ideal female empowering form of governance? Is it the segregation of men and women (lesbian feminism)? Maybe. These lesbian communes can easily create life via sperm banks. And if they're skilled in deadly martial arts, they have little to fear.
Or, does real female empowerment require a matriarchal myth to inspire women? Can women even attain real female empowerment in the 21st century with all the GSIG conditioning around them and humanity operating at a low level of development?
I'm not egotistical enough to believe that I have the correct answers. Women who desire real female empowerment have to figure it out on their own. But if you're lost and not sure where to start, I recommend radical dualism (see Philosophy of Mind in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose and Autoimmune Diseases for Everyone in Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media).
While I may not have the answers, I can tell you that intellectuals and philosophers from academia definitely don't have the answers.
Academia & Philosophers
Even though Simone de Beauvoir plays a role in the early feminist movement, it's more of a critique against traditional patriarchal ideologies/systems of power. But criticism of patriarchy doesn't necessarily represent the empowerment of women.
Beauvoir is obsessed with fellow philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre and only feels that she has value when she's with him. Not exactly female empowerment. But feminists, like all people, excel in rationalizing and justifying their actions relative to their ideologies.
Another philosopher that is no friend to the feminist movement or female empowerment is Ayn Rand. Despite the libertarian doctrine advocating Rand's sense of selfishness, it doesn't work.
Rand's objectivism and libertarianism has never been successful in a developing or developed country. There are zero success stories. That's a pretty bad track record. And the Libertarian Party wonders why their candidate has never won a single seat in federal politics.
And yet, followers of Rand (libertarians) constantly cry foul over the current economic system every time a recession occurs. In reality, recessions usually occur because of GSIG manipulation of banks, stocks, markets, money flow, and interest rates.
Aside from GSIG conditioning, the control of money is the main GISG method for controlling people/society. Of course, if US President Trump authorizes the US Treasury to print legal currency and replace Federal Reserve notes, that would be a big problem for GSIGs.
But let's get back to Rand. She believes that people should act in their own self-interest. In her mind, self-interest represents the highest value of human nature. That's it. End of story.
Of course, that's a problem for visible minorities and women. Why? Because racism and sexism will flourish under Rand's ideologies. Why? Because even though she advocates for government to protect people from sexism and racism publicly, that doesn't apply to private businesses/corporations.
Such corporations will get a pass to discriminate against employees because of unfettered ruthless capitalism. Sexism, racism, sexual orientation, and genetic discrimination will become the norm in Rand’s perfect world.
Remember, Rand is a follower of Aristotle. And Aristotle is just as sexist and racist as all the philosophers before and after him. As a real philosopher (not that academic bullsh*t), I apologize to women on behalf of all philosophers. I'm doing my best to undo a lot of their garbage that still pollutes the 21st century. But it's a lot of work.
Even rape would flourish in Rand's world. Why? Because both the rapist and victim are acting in their own self-interest. The rapist is acting in his self-interest to rape. The victim is acting in her self-interest to get away.
Who determines the winner? Nature and reality. Which means 9/10 times, the perpetrator will win. Of course, if all women are trained in deadly martial arts in high school, that would change the odds significantly.
You need to remember that Rand has absolutely no interest in female empowerment. She wouldn't mind if all women and 99% of the human population dies tomorrow. If she's alive, everything's good.
Allow me to be blunt. Rand is cracked in the head. Her objectivist ideologies are completely ludicrous. Even the self-interest of moviegoers proves that her infamous book Atlas Shrugged (adapted into a movie) is complete garbage as a monumental box office failure. [72] [73] [74]
Interestingly enough, Rand, like many feminists, are atheists. While I despise atheists, I understand why many feminists today feel that they have to be atheist as well. Religion is just too toxic for women that love female empowerment.
But then again, atheism has the same faults. Atheism is just the lesser of the two. And atheism is merely neo-Epicureanism without the moderation, with personal responsibility going right out the window.
And just so we're clear, Rand would be against climate change as well. Why? Self-sacrifice and social responsibility are toxic ideologies in her mind. Sacrificing our standard of living to save the planet wouldn't compute in her mind.
Lowering our carbon lifestyle to save humanity is against Rand's self-interest doctrines. Rand's ideologies are best seen in Netflix's House of Cards characters Francis and Claire Underwood.
For whatever reason, Rand has faith in women being able to change things from within. If there's sexism in the workplace, change it from within. Yah...no. That's been tried and has more or less failed in every example. Rand is completely blind to the 5000 years of patriarchal power structures throughout global society.
If you think that you're going to change sexism and racism in your workplace from within (without help from media, or the public in general), you’re deluding yourself. Do you think that my online articles and books will end racism and sexism via radical dualism on its own? Of course not.
People need to experience radical dualism for themselves and go from there (see The Failure of Academic Philosophy & Racism & Sexism in Philosophy Reborn Part II: Social Humanities).
Rand believes in the duality of reason vs. faith. Yawn. She believes that religious people are weak in the mind because they ignore reason. She believes that people should never take anything on faith.
But faith is just another word for trust. And trust is necessary to run a society. However, whether trust is a gift or is earned is debatable. Sadly, Rand is unaware of the fact that selfishness and reason/rationality rarely go hand in hand.
And Rand is incorrect about faith. Faith can be a very powerful tool. Faith for Muslim believers has changed the world, not for the better, but it's still a significant negative change nonetheless.
And this religious faith in jihad is still occurring in the 21st century despite atheism and WE liberal education. Why? Because you can't intellectualize social problems. You can't educate the racism or sexism out of people. It's not possible.
People in academia who intellectualize sexism, racism, and religion are some of the dumbest people on the planet. None of their efforts will lead to any meaningful results. It's just a lot of hot air.
It's a shame that young undergrads don't realize this and continue to take university courses that supposedly give knowledge or critical analysis. Sorry, but you can do that home sitting on the deck via reflection.
You don't need academia to help you in order to solve social problems. Any solution they come up with will be complete garbage. Why? Because social problems are unfalsifiable issues. Attempting to analyze unfalsifiable ideologies will never lead to any significant growth.
It's only by using another unfalsifiable ideology (like radical dualism) can people begin to understand the overarching ideologies of society in general and the ones you utilize in your life.
Allow me to be clear. Intellectuals in academia are incapable of solving sexism in global society. They can't even solve sexism in their own universities and departments. Don't believe me? See for yourself:
White women across all faculty ranks make about 78 cents for every dollar a man makes. Unsurprisingly, the pay gap is worse for women of color.
...Women tend to drop out of the academic pipeline more often than men, for a variety of reasons like discriminatory workplaces or parenting choices.
...men get cited more than women, and a research article written by a woman and published in a top journal will still receive significantly fewer citations than if the same article was written by a man. Having fewer citations makes an academic less likely to be hired, or promoted.
...a "feminine" name on a CV will be rated as less competent than a male name, and will be paid less.
...women pay a “baby penalty” over the course of their careers in academia. It seems that family formation negatively affects women’s academic careers, while it positively affects men’s academic careers.
...Sexual harassment is a huge issue in academia. My field, philosophy, has a serious sexual harassment problem. A disturbing number of male professors are sexually harassing and assaulting their students and colleagues...Well-respected philosophers (many of whom specialize in ethics, ironically) are retaliating against those who speak up about their experiences. [75]
A few years ago, I started my postdoc in a prominent biology lab at a top U.S. university, supported by a prestigious fellowship. I thought I was on track to become a professor. Instead, I am one of a number of female postdocs to leave the lab prematurely in recent years because of my supervisor's sexist behavior and the toxic lab environment she created. (Yes, she—women can be sexist, too, though I initially thought there would be little chance of facing sexism in a female professor's lab.)
...When I was assigned to give talks at conferences, my supervisor told me—in front of my peers—that I was the token woman. She frequently assigned the women secretarial and janitorial duties, such as cleaning common areas, organizing activities, and running her personal errands. When I discovered that my male colleagues were getting raises, I asked my supervisor for fair treatment, but she denied giving the raises and rejected my request.
...I approached the university ombuds office for help, but the staff said the strongest actions they could take were to "keep an eye on my supervisor" and send her a warning letter if the office received multiple complaints. They advised—not unkindly—that lodging an official complaint with the human resources (HR) department would result in a prolonged, ugly battle with my supervisor. [76]
In the competitive world of academia, student evaluations are often used as a tool in the process of hiring and promotion. That the evaluations may be biased against female professors is particularly problematic in light of existing gender imbalance, particularly at the highest echelons of academia
...Set alongside the unconscious bias of academic recruiters themselves, as well as the difficulty of juggling parenthood with the demands of research, the apparent sexism in student evaluations provides yet another hurdle for women in academia. [77]
In reality, there's no such thing as unconscious bias. There are only people who refuse to acknowledge their racist or sexist ideologies (see Philosophy of Mind in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose). And the sexism in academia continues:
...We knew sexism was going to shape our experiences as scholars. But the gendered and sexualized power dynamics within our departments and our profession go far beyond the work itself, and it's only in hindsight that we have begun to recognize the trauma some of us have endured even from our own mentors.
...While I was a part of a circle of incredibly resilient and mutually supportive feminist academic women, none of us felt empowered to challenge the status quo...The prevailing sentiment was that this was the price we paid to do what we loved.
...I've had so many moments where I had to pause and ask myself how some of the smartest, most educated, outspoken, feminist women in the world find ourselves in a field where sexual harassment, stalking, assault, and coercion are routine, accepted, and condoned. The insidious nature of sexism in academia is staggering when I look back at it from outside. [78]
And if marriage was a game changer, motherhood seemed poised to take women off the playing board entirely. On hearing that I was expecting a second child, my chair blurted out, "Oh no!" before quickly regaining her composure...The dean responded with no hint of irony, "You know, I just returned from China where women are afraid to get pregnant because they might be fired." The message was clear — I should consider myself lucky to have a job.
...When being introduced to new colleagues, it stung when my credentials often ended with "wife" while my husband's introduction always included "faculty" or "professor." Did no one notice that we held the same degree from the same institution, and even the same academic title?...But several well-publicized slights underscore that even the profession's most famous female economists are relegated to back seat roles in relation to their male economist partners. [79]
If you're a woman and desire female empowerment but don't know where to begin, forget feminism or academia. They don't have any significant answers for you. And any answers they do have are not ones of female empowerment, but rather female disempowerment.
Instead of using Google to meet online groups, or constantly looking to others for help, have you ever tried looking within? Why not give radical dualism a try. Yes, it's a bit flaky, like all new age things. But what do you have to lose? All other solutions have failed. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Female empowerment still eludes women on the global scale in 2017. That's not accidental. That's intentional. And the proof is in the very article you're reading.
I'm writing this article to show you that all of the trillions of dollars of time and effort to combat sexism has been a complete failure. If it was a success, you wouldn't be reading this article. How long are you going to ask for help from others when you can get the answers from within via radical dualism?
Sports
Aside from feminism, objectivism, atheism, science, or academia, another place where you won't find female empowerment is sports. The fact that you may think that female sports represents empowerment is merely an illusion.
Women are only allowed to enter because the refusal would be too much even for GSIGs. Men who enjoy sports don't actually like to watch women sports. They do it grudgingly to show their girlfriend or wife that they're not sexist.
And that's the thing that many feminists or liberals don’t understand. Many sexist men have girlfriends or wives and are not sexist to them. But they're sexist to almost every other woman. Why? As I already mentioned above, many men like to have their girlfriend/wife that they settle down with, and one or more various women on the side to treat like dirt.
Why do boyfriends and husbands treat other women like dirt and not their girlfriend/wife? Because they compartmentalize their sexism. Just as women are starting to catch onto men’s bullsh*t, sexist men are upping their game just as much.
It's fascinating to watch. Extraterrestrials that supposedly monitor humans must be enjoying the show as each sex, each religious group, and each political group tries to outdo the other.
So what's in it for women athletes, aside from the lack of funding relative to men? Glory and social responsibility. Some women athletes see themselves as role models for the next generation. And who am I to judge? I know a few actors and actresses that get into acting in order to be a role model for the next generation. To each their own (within ethics).
However, if you want to be a role model, you can't do it in a sexist sports culture. And unfortunately, sexism is rampant in sports in terms of male coaches/doctors sexually assaulting their young female athletes:
A criminal trial into one of the worst sports scandals in Canadian history opens Monday to determine the fate of a former coach of the national girls ski team who is accused of sexually abusing 12 underage athletes in the 1990s.
...An investigation by La Presse has revealed that Alpine Canada, the national ski federation that oversees competitive skiing in the country, had been warned about Charest's reputation before it hired him and that it muzzled athletes he allegedly victimized.
Things came to a head in February 1998. During a competition abroad, a fight broke out between three female skiers. They had discovered that their coach had been having intimate relations with the other girls at the same time as them...
Word of the situation made it back to the head office of Alpine Canada in Calgary...The federation opened an investigation and the coach was suspended. He resigned several days later...
That's when an alleged vast coverup began.
The three athletes were advised to keep quiet and warned about the possible loss of sponsorships and the impact this could have on their careers... [80]
Another alleged victim of Bertrand Charest testified at his sex-assault trial Wednesday and said the former ski coach put his hands down her pants when she was about 16.
...She said that at the time she "would have done anything" for Charest and hoped the alleged incidents meant it would be her turn to get more attention from the coach.
"I wanted to go fast (skiing) and I wanted to be the best," she said. "I wanted his attention." [81]
It's almost as bad as Hollywood for women trying to get their big break. If you want your big break, you'll have to give me a good break, if you know what I mean. And many women do it. Again, I'm not judging. I'm just saying. If you want to advocate for female empowerment, having sex or performing sexual favors for male superiors to advance your career is not the way to do it.
And the sexual assault in sports continues:
The woman, who is not among the alleged victims, said Charest would pick alternating favourites among his students — praising some while mocking others for their performances. "It was a roller coaster where he'd make you feel good, and then he'd destroy your confidence," said the woman... [81]
For the females readers that are not in the loop, that's called flipping the switch. It's a tactic that men regularly use to get a woman interested. They praise you and then tell you about one of your flaws. It flips the power dynamic. The woman is usually confused, but likes that fact that the guy is different and unique.
While some women are beginning to see through men's bullsh*t, most are not even close. And with the new generation of women, I don't think it's going to get any better for women. The GSIG conditioning is just too good. It's operating on a chronic level in every aspect of life for a woman. And that's not easy to ignore or break away from.
And the sexual assault in sports continues:
The court also heard from two brothers of an alleged victim who said Tuesday she'd had an abortion at the age of 15 after having unprotected sex with Charest numerous times.
...Several witnesses have testified they had sexual relationships with Charest and have said he was controlling and manipulative toward the athletes whose careers he supervised. [81]
During a two-month European ski trip in 1996, one of Bertrand Charest's ski students built an igloo out of snow outside the chalet in order to escape from him, she told his sex assault trial Tuesday.
The witness said Charest took her virginity earlier on that trip to France, in his bedroom. She was 15.
"He came and got me in my room and I remember sitting on his bed when he started kissing me," she told the court. "I don't remember how my underwear came off. It was painful."
...The witness told the court Charest would refuse to coach her if she rejected his sexual advances when she was his ski student.
"I would have liked to have had the courage to push him away but I wasn't able to," said the woman, who was the 10th alleged victim to take the stand at the trial.
"When I said no (to sex), he stopped coaching me. When I said yes, he did." [82]
Two gymnasts, including a member of the 2000 U.S. women's Olympic team, say they were sexually abused by a former longtime doctor for USA Gymnastics, court documents and interviews show.
Dr. Larry Nassar, 53, who worked for decades for the gymnastics organization until his dismissal last year, sexually groped and fondled the teenage Olympian under the guise of physical therapy during her elite career, according to a lawsuit filed last week in California. [83]
Nassar, 53, has been charged with 25 counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and two other counts of child pornography possession. More than 100 women have made complaints to Michigan State University police about the man once considered to be the country's top doctor for gymnasts. [84]
A 22-year-old woman who competed through a local club recounted how Nassar repeatedly penetrated her with ungloved hands while treating her in the basement of her home, starting when she was about 13 years old. She said she knew he did the same to other gymnasts.
"We all talked about how it was uncomfortable and we really didn't like it and it didn't help, but it happened to all of us, so we thought it was normal," she said. [85]
The gymnastics doctor at the center of a sexual-abuse scandal that rocked the Olympic sport pleaded guilty on Tuesday to federal child pornography charges after striking a deal that some of his accusers denounced as "outrageous."
The agreement also means Larry Nassar, 54, will not face federal criminal charges for allegedly molesting two former gymnasts at out-of-state and overseas locations, although prosecutors said the deal "does not preclude" them from pursuing additional charges against the doctor for other individuals. [86]
And instead of prosecuting people at the top for turning a blind eye, they're rewarded:
The former president of the U.S. gymnastics governing body received about $1 million in a severance package after stepping down amid a large-scale sexual assault scandal...
Steve Penny, who had headed the federation since 2005, resigned after the U.S. Olympic Committee voted to recommend to USA Gymnastics that he should step aside amid accusations that the organization failed to report sexual abuse. Penny's deal was reached to cover approximately two years' worth of compensation... [87]
Sadly, women athletics is just a means for men to say that they're not sexist. In reality, no one is really watching. Why not? Because this is a man's world. If women want to change that, they'll either have to take their position by force, or most likely outsmart men.
While the moral solution would be for men to recognize women as equals, without radical dualism, that's unlikely to happen (see Sexism in Philosophy Reborn Part II: Social Humanities).
Hollywood
I'm pushing over 19,000 words right now. I'm going to have to move a bit faster. Forgive the lack of setting the mood for the reader. Sexism is alive and well in Hollywood/Film/TV industry. And best way to show it is through pay:
Amanda Seyfried...revealed she was once paid significantly less than a male co-star.
"A few years ago, on one of my big-budget films, I found I was being paid 10 percent of what my male co-star was getting, and we were pretty even in status," she said. [88]
Kathy Griffin was an unknown comedic actress when she landed her breakout role on NBC's 1996 sitcom "Suddenly Susan." But three seasons in, she discovered a sobering truth after grilling her co-stars about their wages. "I had the second-lowest salary on the cast," she says. "Judd Nelson made four times what I made, and he ended up getting fired." When her agents balked at securing her a pay hike, she marched up to the office of Warner Bros. TV chief Peter Roth to demand a raise..."I got a raise," she says. "I still didn't make equal to what the guys were making."
For those who aren't celebrities, the scarcity of jobs in the industry drives women in Hollywood to take whatever offers come their way. Female directors in television worked on only 16% of the 3,900 episodes produced last season, according to the Directors Guild of America. That's still an improvement over the movies, where women made just 7% of the top-grossing 250 films last year... [89]
As the industry polishes gongs in preparation for another awards season, however, there is no full-blown feminist insurrection. Calls to end inequality still reverberate but have yet to translate into visible, concrete change.
...the wage issue is part of the larger gender problem in the mainstream film industry. Until women are considered to be equal players, their pay will most likely be lower than that of their male colleagues."
...Sharon Stone recently recalled weeping over unequal salaries after the release of Basic Instinct in 1992. "No one wanted to pay me. I remember sitting in my kitchen with my manager and just crying and saying: 'I'm not going to work until I get paid.' I still got paid so much less than any men."
...Rooney Mara, the Oscar-nominated star of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, revealed that male co-stars had earned double her salary. "It's just a reality of the time that we live in. To me, it's frustrating, but at the same time, I'm just grateful to be getting paid at all for what I do." [90]
My anecdotal experience tells me that women don't express as much confidence in negotiations and/or are less willing to be confrontational in the face of a low offer. In fact, Jennifer Lawrence, in her celebrated essay on the topic, said that one reason she was paid less than her American Hustle male co-stars was that "I failed as a negotiator because I gave up early." Natalie Portman, regarding being paid less than Ashton Kutcher on No Strings Attached, told Marie Claire, "I wasn't as pissed as I should have been…The disparity is crazy."
"As a negotiator," Erika told me, "I tend to feel overly protective toward my female clients, who are underselling themselves, whereas men very rarely question their own qualification and assume they are entitled to the maximum that can be gotten. [91]
"Compared to men, in most professions, women make 80 cents to the dollar," Portman told Marie Claire. "In Hollywood we are making 30 cents to the dollar."
The 35-year-old star – who won a best actress Oscar in 2011 for her role in "Black Swan" and plays Jackie Kennedy in a forthcoming biopic about the former U.S. First Lady - said the pay disparity was "crazy". [92]
The BBC's release of their highest paid stars' salaries has shone a light on the entertainment industry’s inequality. While the corporation's highest paid male star, Chris Evans, receives an annual income between £2,200,00 and £2,249,999, the highest paid woman, Claudia Winkleman, amasses just £450,000 to £499,999.
It may not have featured so prominently in the news, but Hollywood has a pretty striking gender pay gap of its own. The highest paid female actor in the world is Jennifer Lawrence, who stars in The Hunger Games and last year earnt $46 million.
Not too shabby, but it is significantly lower than the world's highest paid male actor Dwayne Johnson, who earned $64 million. [93]
But Gal Gadot says she is 'grateful and happy' for her $300,000 Wonder Woman salary even though fans think she deserved more.
...Her deal was part of a three-film agreement that included Batman Vs Superman and Justice League at $300,000 apiece. [94]
...his salary [Robert Downey Jr.] reportedly increased dramatically from one film to the next. For 2008's Iron Man, for instance, Downey Jr reportedly 'only' pocketed around $500,000 – a salary that would likely have seemed fairly generous at the time, considering he'd largely been jettisoned by Hollywood casting agents at that point.
By the time 2010's Iron Man 2 came along, though, Downey Jr's stock had soared – right alongside Iron Man's box office takings - and he apparently raked in a much more substantial $10 million. Even that, though, was dwarfed by his reputed salary for 2013's Iron Man 3 – a frankly enormous $50 million. Which, assuming the figures are roughly correct, leaves RDJ with a total Iron Man-related income of roughly $60.5 million. [95]
Umm...the 2017 film Wonder Woman earns over $820 million (USD) globally. [96] The 2008 film, Iron Man only makes $585 million (USD) globally. [97]
I don't think you realize how ludicrous $300K (USD) is for a lead role in a summer blockbuster movie. Generally speaking, Hollywood writers earn about $100K (USD) more or less just for a movie script. But there are screenplays that blow Gadot’s bullsh*t $300K completely out of the water. Allow me to show you.
*All amounts are in US dollars.
*All amounts are relative to their own dollars at the time and have not been adjusted for inflation.
*All amounts are rounded up to one decimal point.
Movie Cost of Script Global Box Office Revenue
Basic Instinct (1992) $3 million. [98] $352.9 million. [99]
A Knight's Tale (2001) $2.5 million. [98] $117.5 million. [100]
Panic Room (2002) $4 million. [98] $196.4 million. [101]
Evan Almighty (2007) $2.5 million. [98] $173.4 million. [102]
Gadot failed to push the envelope and settled for less than what she's worth.
While the gender gap is an overarching issue, it's significant because Hollywood is an industry of images. In the eyes of an occultist or new age believer, images are esoteric in nature and capable of becoming the foundation of an ideology or a movement.
Unfortunately, in this case, the ideology is one of female suppression. Even if a woman gets a lead role, her character is usually sexualized or framed to fit the feminist framework of once a victim always a victim (Sigourney Weaver and Meryl Streep are the exceptions).
In case you're not seeing the overall picture, allow me to be clear. Aside from sexualizing women and portraying them as victims, by paying women less and giving them fewer leads/opportunities, Hollywood is devaluing women in general.
Women in Hollywood don't have equal value relative to their male peers. And that's not accidental. That's intentional. Why? Because that's the way the GSIG script is written. And Hollywood is their favorite tool to condition the global public to accept GSIG ideologies (see The Deep State).
Worse, even if A and B list actresses stand together in solidarity and refuse to accept low payments, the producers will just bring in new, talented, and beautiful actresses from Los Angeles, New York, Toronto, and Vancouver.
These new actresses, even with all their beauty and skill, are still struggling to get their big break. And they would most likely accept 1/10 of the pay that A and B list actresses are offered for lead roles.
And most moviegoers will still watch movies without the usual A or B list actress. Why? Because most men (and even some women) value male actors more than female ones. It is a pickle no doubt about it.
And just in case you still don't believe me about the deep and chronic sexism in Hollywood, there's always the casting couch. The term refers to the fact that many male producers will give an upcoming actress her big break only if she has sex with the producer or does sexual favors for him. Don't believe me? See for yourself:
After Capp - who would have been 45 at the time - arrived, the actress said he 'disrobed' from his business clothes before entering the room in a dressing gown.
'I got the picture there, and I thought, "I’m in trouble. Where’s the door? I don't want to do this."
...'And then I sat down and he wanted me to give him a kiss, and I went, "I don’t do this. I’m sorry."
...He immediately turned on her, telling her 'just go back, you're never going to make anything of your life,' adding that she would have to marry a Jewish dentist to make money. [103]
It seems every female actor of a certain status has perched uncomfortably on the casting couch at one time or another. Gwyneth Paltrow, Charlize Theron, Helen Mirren, Alison Brie, Susan Sarandon and Emmy Rossum have all recalled creepy come-ons from powerful men that took place early in their careers. In an interview in March, Jane Fonda revealed that she had once been fred "because I wouldn't sleep with my boss"...
..."You can go to the union and say I've experienced this, but they say: 'Well, you should get a lawyer.' Even if you could aford a lawyer – and a lot of this is happening to actors who are still making their way – your career would be over. So it's a no-win situation. The culture is male-dominated and if you're a female in the industry, part of what you're obliged to understand is you've got to suck it up, or move on to another profession."
...The big names have brought casting-couch culture to wider attention, but, for most actors, going public about such an experience without jeopardising their careers remains a virtual impossibility. [104]
How do you get women to accept less pay and stay silent about sexual harassment or assault? Thousands of years of chronic GSIG conditioning. This is what I've been trying to tell you.
GSIGs have rigged the entire system against women for thousands of years via religion, science, atheism, academia, and feminism. And you need to realize that this isn't accidental. All of it is intentional. How long will you close your eyes to the intentional suppression of female empowerment?
Contrary to what you may believe, most male producers in Hollywood see women as commodities that can be bought, sold, and traded for market price or below. To be fair to women, I can understand why these actresses will still play the game.
It's a sexist patriarchal system but it's not going to change. If I don't do it, the next woman auditioning will do it. I might keep my principles, but I'll be watching her on TV as a waitress waiting for my big break. F*ck that. I'll just do it and suck it up.
The same is true of Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein is one of the most powerful people in Hollywood. The entire trillion dollar film industry...all of the A-list actors...all of the Democrats...all of the liberals...all of the entertainment reporters...all of them turn a blind eye to Weinstein's alleged sexual harassment.
This is the result of liberal conditioning. You can believe X, but implement Y in action. Like most liberals, ideologies and actions get lost in translation. Then again, many liberals are completely lost in their ideologies.
I'd bet money that if Weinstein took a lie detector they would find that he believes that he's god's gift to women and has deep sense of respect for them. That's how bad the sexism is. Men delude themselves into thinking that they're helping women when they're only using them as a means to an end. This is the fruit of liberal ideologies in action in the 21st century.
Women have intentionally been dealt a sh*tty hand for over 5000 years by GSIGs. And while the future can change via radical dualism and skoparxism, it's not going to happen at tomorrow's casting call. This is a competitive and cruel world for many.
And yet our WE problems are insignificant to the problems that people face in developing nations. Opportunities that you may see as sexist or racist are insignificant in a developing nation. Even if the opportunity breeds sexism and/or racism, most people in developing nations would jump at the chance if it means that they could live in the US or Canada on a permanent basis.
As we (in the West) complain about the rampant and chronic sexism and racism in WE society, many people are still struggling just to survive in developing nations. These people would literally kill you if they could switch places and have your life.
They would trade their sh*tty developing nation life for your unfair racist and sexist life any day of the week. At the end of the day, as a rational and compassionate human being, how do you square that? Just that luck of the draw in being born in WE society.
If you believe that, you're basically saying that your life automatically has a higher value than their life because you're born in WE society. That's pushing sociopathic levels.
But then again, if you believe that debt is the natural way of the world...that women are naturally inferior to men...that white people are superior to non-whites...that self-interest and your selfish desires are prized characteristics of human nature...you were a sociopath from the starting gate.
Silicon Valley
While Silicon Valley excels in innovations, it's only male innovations that matter in this patriarchal game. It's not that this is just a boys club. It's worse than that. It's the ideology that women in Silicon Valley are incapable of making a valuable contribution.
Aside from GSIG suppression of female empowerment, Silicon Valley itself conditions women to be inferior to men. Don't believe me? See for yourself:
One female entrepreneur recounted how she had been propositioned by a Silicon Valley venture capitalist while seeking a job with him, which she did not land after rebuffing him. Another showed the increasingly suggestive messages she had received from a start-up investor. And one chief executive described how she had faced numerous sexist comments from an investor while raising money for her online community website.
...The tech industry has long suffered a gender imbalance, with companies such as Google and Facebook acknowledging how few women were in their ranks. Some female engineers have started to speak out on the issue, including a former Uber engineer who detailed a pattern of sexual harassment at the company, setting off internal investigations that spurred the resignation in June of Uber’s chief executive, Travis Kalanick.
...Most venture capitalists and entrepreneurs are men, with female entrepreneurs receiving $1.5 billion in funding last year versus $58.2 billion for men... [105]
Sexual harassment is pervasive, with one survey earlier this year reporting 60 percent of women in tech saying they had received unwanted sexual advances. Called "Elephant in the Valley," the survey included over 200 women with at least 10 years of experience working in technology. The majority of respondents — 91 percent — live in the San Francisco Bay Area/Silicon Valley.
...The report has left Silicon Valley reeling, with many wondering who in the industry is being complicit and turning a blind eye to unacceptable behavior. [106]
Qualcomm has agreed to pay $19.5 million to settle a looming gender discrimination lawsuit that alleged women engineers faced systemic roadblocks to equal pay and promotions at the company.
...The complaint claimed Qualcomm has a male-dominated culture, with women holding less than 15 percent of what the company defines as senior leadership positions.
In its chip making unit — the largest in terms of employment — women hold less than 10 percent of director or senior director jobs.
...Qualcomm also uses a sponsorship system where supervisors recommend workers for promotions, instead of posting available jobs for everyone to apply. The system helped create a glass ceiling for women, the complaint alleged. [107]
A former female software engineer at Twitter filed a class action lawsuit this week claiming the company's promotion process unlawfully favors men…
The suit alleges that Twitter relies on a "black box" style of promotion, wherein employees are notified of open positions via a mysterious "shoulder tap" process. This fraternity-esque promotional style takes the place of any formal job postings...
...Promotion into Twitter's senior technical positions is based on subjective judgments, by committees that are comprised of and dependent on upper management at Twitter, and predominantly male. These judgments are tainted with conscious or unconscious prejudices and gender-based stereotypes, which explains why so few women employees at Twitter advance to senior and leadership positions. [108]
Within the past few months, Google has been accused of having "systematic compensation disparities" between men and women in the company; Susan Fowler Rigetti published a 2,800-word blog post containing allegations against Uber, leading to two investigations, 20 dismissals and the resignation of Uber executive Amit Singhal over previous sexual harassment allegations.
...In her lawsuit, the plaintiff, Elizabeth Scott, claims that UploadVR had "purposefully and expressly created a 'boy's club' environment", with commonplace behaviour including "degrading" behaviour towards female employees and even a "room to encourage sexual intercourse at the workplace".
...only 20 per cent of Congress is female and across the board, only 5 per cent of Fortune 500 companies have a female CEO. On average, women receive 63 per cent lower salary offers than men for the same job at the same company.
...the Department of Labour contests Google's claims, arguing that through its own analysis of Google's finances, there are "systematic compensation disparities" between men and women in the company.
...The government’s analysis at this point indicates that discrimination against women in Google is quite extreme, even in this industry." Similarly, Janette Wipper testified in court on Friday that this discrimination occurred "pretty much across the entire workforce." [109]
AJ Vandermeyden, a female engineer, had publicly accused Elon Musk's company of sexual harassment and discrimination.
But soon after, Tesla fired her, accusing her of pursuing a "miscarriage of justice" by filing a lawsuit that alleged "pervasive harassment" and pay discrimination.
"They just want to absolutely crush anyone who speaks up," said Vandermeyden, 33, seated inside her attorney's San Francisco office on a recent afternoon. "I spoke up, and I was made a sacrificial lamb for it. It’s a scary precedent."
Vandermeyden detailed the painful experience of losing a job she loved while facing harsh personal attacks by Tesla in the media. [110]
Even if Tesla is found guilty or settles the lawsuit, will climate change believers ditch their new Tesla cars? No. Why not? Because sexism isn't a priority for them. Climate change believers are under the delusion that they're saving the planet and the human race by buying electric cars.
Sexism doesn't compare to climate change. We have bigger fish to fry. In reality, it's the social issues like racism and sexism that make a difference in humanity's growth and development, not technological innovations.
But don't waste your time telling this to climate change believers. They're cracked in the head. They've already gone down the climate change rabbit hole but their mind never came back out into reality.
Climate change believers can buy all the electric cars they want but the buses, planes, cruise ships, and mid-size to giant delivery trucks will still be running on diesel (see The Environmental Movement).
In Silicon Valley, most men believe that only they can create technology of the future. Only men can save humanity from itself. Women can cheer us on. They can make sure that we're in the best state of mind while they serve us as a sex object.
This is what the real Silicon Valley looks like. How long will it take for you to realize that sexism in Silicon Valley is just part of the GSIG suppression of female empowerment?
Aside from ideologies as the primary cause, sexism in Silicon Valley is also the result of liberal/feminist conditioning. The blatant sexism (not a unconscious bias or misogyny) in silicon Valley is not the result of he came from a broken home, or he was sexually abused. Sorry, but the reason is liberal conditioning. Allow me to explain.
When a man is raised in liberal conditioning through his primary, secondary, and university years, it more or less turns them into manwhores. Yes, all men are capable of going beyond their liberal conditioning, but why would they want to do that?
This liberal conditioning teaches them to screw as many women as they want. And women allow themselves to get plowed again and again because of their own liberal conditioning that teaches them that sexual promiscuity equals empowerment.
And remember, men (including me) have practically no respect for sluts. But sluts on the other hand respect manwhores. That's how deep and bad the conditioning is. Hence, most liberal women will give in sexually and/or turn a blind eye to sexism for the sake of their career. Why? Because they know that women who speak out are more or less blacklisted from managerial level jobs in Silicon Valley.
Why are they blacklisted? Because most of the men at the executive level don't care about what sluts think of them. They only see women as sex objects to ease the stress of men who are doing the real work. Hence, they throw a few million dollars to settle the lawsuit and shut the women up. Sadly, most of the women take it and prevent a full blown trial from taking place.
To be fair, it's quite understandable why most women settle their sexist lawsuits. While the accusations may be lured, most of the accusations wouldn't meet the standard of evidence of beyond reasonable doubt in the courts.
Hence, going to trial is more of a symbolic action vs. winning the actual case. And so they take the money, tuck their tails between their legs and quietly move on. But on the other hand, if more of these cases went to trial (but lose), the damage could still snowball into significant reform.
The only question is how long women in Silicon Valley will put up with this sexism and settle their cases. If it's forever, then sexism in Silicon Valley will continue forever.
Worse, most investors don't care if their Silicon Valley corporation settles their sexist lawsuits. Why not? Because most Silicon Valley investors are manwhores themselves and see women as disposable sex objects. They just can't say that out loud. But that's what they're saying when they don't pull their investments from the corporations.
While the perpetrators at the senior and executive level are definitely responsible for their sexist actions, when other companies blacklist the women...when the investors choose to stay in...all of them are turning a blind eye to these sexist actions. And that's not accidental. That's intentional.
And no, there's no amount of primary, secondary, or post-secondary education that will educate the sexism out of them.
No amount of MBAs or Phds in Silicon Valley will change the GSIG script of suppressing female empowerment and seeing women as sexual objects for the pleasure of men.
No amount of HR policies will make a significant dent in battling sexism.
No amount of sexual harassment workshops will have any significant effect on ending sexism in Silicon Valley or sexism in general.
While GSIGs won't stop pushing their female suppression script, the only solution is to counter that script with another ideology. And hopefully, that ideology will be radical dualism (see Philosophy of Mind in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose and Autoimmune Diseases for Everyone in Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media).
Western-European (WE) Society
And last but not least is the subtle and not so subtle GSIG conditioning of women throughout WE society, with the most obvious one being make-up. The fact that men expect women to wear make-up on a regular basis is truly a sexist ideology.
Give the men something nice to look at or you're of no value. Of course, men don't usually say that out loud, but that's what many of them think.
Personally, I don't believe women should be wearing any make-up at all. I don't want my future wife to wear make-up (not even for special occasions). No lipstick, no mascara, no blush, no foundation, no eye liner...none of it. Why not? Because wearing make-up is a patriarchal ideology for the benefit of men.
Never mind the unnatural ingredients in make-up. Stick to coconut or olive oil as a natural moisturizer for your skin. If you have money, feel free to look into shea butter, castor oil, argon oil, or jojoba oil.
Remember, most men don't wake up in the morning and put on make-up before they step out of the house. Men can wake up, wash their face, brush their teeth, throw on some old pants and t-shirt, walk out the door and feel 100% confident in picking up a woman/asking her out on a date.
Why? Because of their self-confidence. And their self-confidence is a direct result of their strong character. They don't need make up to feel attractive. They don't need make-up in order to be confident. They already have it on the inside.
But I'm wearing it for myself. If you're a woman and wear make-up in order to feel beautiful for yourself, you have more pressing issues than you think. Work on developing your character and purpose in life instead of wearing layers of unnatural ingredients on your face every day.
If you're not sure where to begin I recommend radical dualism (see Philosophy of Mind in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose and Autoimmune Diseases for Everyone in Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media).
And then we have the fashion industry. The fact that many women are a slave to fashion doesn't give me hope for female empowerment. If you don't feel beautiful wearing sweat pants and a t-shirt...that's very sad. If you only feel beautiful wearing layers of make-up and the newest fashion...you're lost in your WE patriarchal cage.
And then we have high heels. Hollywood and the fashion industry are the strongest advocates for women to wear high heels to look and feel beautiful. In reality, it's just patriarchal GSIG conditioning. If you're wearing high heels, it means that you've given into patriarchal conditioning.
Worse, women in Hollywood, fashion, and women in general tell their daughters to wear high heels (for special occasions or the workplace). This is men getting women to condition other women to fall into line with GSIG conditioning in suppressing female empowerment. Truly disgusting and sad.
Every time I see a woman wearing high heels in public I frown. Sometimes, I don't even look at people in public. I just see through them. It's an art.
And then you have the sexist comments from comedians that reinforce GSIG suppression of female empowerment. In May 2017 Bill Maher implies that Ivanka Trump is in the White House to pacify her father via incest/sexual acts. [111] He's really saying that Ivanka Trump only has value as a sexual commodity to pacify her crazy father. All with liberals and Democrats cheering him on. Truly disgusting.
JImmy Dore, a comedian and commentator for liberal alternative media outlet the Young Turks (TYT) calls Ann Coulter a cunt in his standup comedy. [112] But it's supposedly okay because it's either against Trump, conservatives, or Republicans. Disgusting.
And then we have women and their age. You can't ask me how old I am. How dare you ask that question. Sigh. If you ever hear this, it means that the person, usually a woman, is self-conscious about her looks (even with make-up on).
The fact that middle aged women are too self-conscious to tell a person their real age is due to patriarchal GSIG conditioning. And sadly, for the most part, middle-aged women happily go along with this conditioning.
I'm not going to sugarcoat the problem. Real female empowerment is an uphill battle with a 99.9% rate of failure. Though there are many liberal men in society that want women to be free from religion, they still want these women to be subservient to them.
They still want to watch their porn, have a wife, and have a mistress on the side if possible. Today's liberalism, feminism, science, and atheism are nothing more than new GSIG cages for female empowerment.
How long will it take for women to refuse to accept these circumstances as natural or the norm?
How long will it take for women to stop wearing make-up and high heels?
How long will it take for women to refuse to be a victim in feminist ideologies?
How long will it take for women to stop playing the victim card and wanting a man to protect them?
How long will it take for women to take personal responsibility for their own actions?
How long will it take for women to realize that science and atheism is just another cage for women?
How long will it take for women to realize that the entire game and every aspect of it has been intentional rigged against them for at least 5000 years of recorded history?
How long will it take for women to take significant action to end patriarchal power structures?
References:
***Taken out, due to steemit limit, please see original article: