No, you don't get to redefine terms like that just because someone stupid decided to do so. If Anita Sarkeesian whales about sexism being the only real factor in the gender pay gap, it doesn't redefine the meaning of "gender pay gap". I agree that claim that "gender pay gap is caused solely by a sexism" is not only a myth, it is just a stupid thing to say - that doesn't mean that statistical fact known as "gender pay gap" exists, nor does it mean that sexism does not contribute to it in some (maybe minor, maybe not) way.
It really is a debate on terminology, and, again, it doesn't have anything to do with the hypocrisy I pointed out.
Regarding the breadwinner thing, I don't see what it has to do with what I said at all - but... *shrugs* I don't think it really matters.
They do talk about a lot of stories about "marriage gone wrong", of course tending to choose the most extreme examples, since they are more interesting to read. Yes, few people openly say, "marriage is wrong". Few people also openly say, "refugees are rapists" - but the stereotype (however popular) is already there, due to the way mass media work.
Yes, feminists' portrayal of gender pay gap is usually lies. Not exactly news, but apparently it needs to be said.
Not like there were many posters who said it's always the case and not like the issue of losing half of it was explained to you already, but why exactly do married women often earn less than their husbands? Could it be because they take time off to take care of their kids and sacrifice career advancement, while their husbands do not? Could it be that some remain stay at home wives, in which case their pay doesn't even exist because *gasp* they chose not to work? And even if they work, they could have chosen less paying fields, which is statistically the case? All caused by women's choices. Not by discrimination, i.e. the way feminists portray gender pay gap. But feel free to continue pretending not knowing why people are critical in gender pay gap topics.
What the fuck does it have to do with anything? Secular ceremony doesn't mention religion? No waiiiii :O Totally negates secular marriage ceremony being modeled after Christian one in Christian countries!
Here's a better question: Even getting married in church for few hours of your life, what on earth does that have to do with marriage being "just a religious tradition"? You are religious because you've visited church once in you life? Your marriage is religious tradition because you spent 2 minutes or hours of your life on "ceremony"?
Good points. Marriage is not a religious event unless the ones getting married want it to be and they prefer it is one which their God is witness to. But marriage itself has been around for thousands of years and before the foundation of some major religions. I wanted to be married in a church because for myself it was a part of my religious life. And I take vows and pledges seriously. Even the one I made to my country when I was sworn in to serve in the Army. Which I personally believe God was a witness to.
Christmas is, technically, a religious tradition. But I personally don't know a single person who treats it as such. Most just see it as a time off work, when everyone goes shopping and eating tasty food with their families.
Now take a trip down the memory lane, go back a few posts and do read the part where I said that Lotus Victorya calling it just a religious tradition is incorrect. Because it's a thing that has happened. Religious influence is much more recent and was prevalent for centuries. As such, it has more of an impact on the general idea than generally forgotten traditions predating it. Marriage is largely a cultural thing and that includes secular marriage. It does not exist in a vacuum and is affected by things like religion. In Europe the institution of civil marriage stems mostly from Napoleonic law. Which simply replaced the specifically Christian aspects for secular ones. The rest of your post is a non-sequitur.
Criticism of feminists redefining the term is also redefining the term? Riveting tale. Also, here's your beloved European Commision's actual stance of the matter and not just one line summary you got from Wikipedia: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-e...p/index_en.htm The very first sentence and it already blames discrimination for it.
Which, again, exists only because you deliberately misrepresent people's criticism. Continue to pretend it's something different all you want though.
You don't see how a claim about specific group of men and women (i.e. the married ones) somehow "proving" hypocrisy in relation to one's stance gender pay gap in the whole population is a dishonest comparison? Buy better eyes.
Divorce isn't always loaded against the male. I have a female friend who was the bread winner in her marriage. Her husband was an emotionally abusive fuckwad who couldn't hold a steady job once he realized how sweet it was to sit on his ass. And he ended up taking her to the cleaners with child support despite having a 50/50 joint custody arrangement.
It's basically loaded against the breadwinner...hard... Never get into such an arrangement if you are going to be the breadwinner. At least not without a comprehensive prenuptual agreement.
But you aren't saying, "Gender pay gap as explained by feminists is myth". You are saying, "Gender pay gap is a myth" - or, at least, those people I was referring to were saying that. Not my fault that they do not say what they mean. I am not going to guess all the new meanings they voluntarily assign to the words they use, I am going to address what they say, not what they think they say.
What EC blames gender pay gap on is irrelevant to the definition of gender pay gap.
Fair enough, I suppose. Criticism accepted.
Of course. But her point was it is not a religious ceremony as such unless the couple want it to be. For example, there are some elderly couples who decide to live together and not get legally married because of concerns over lost of retirement benefits. To them they may feel married and for their purposes, it may mean just as much as any other legal marriage.
Notice how everyone who advocates for marriage cannot give a single good reason why someone should get married. Its either rooted in religion, tradition or some vague "its the right thing to do" rooted in both religion and tradition.
Nothing is gained from it. Married couples have no major advantages that regular couples have. The opposite is actually true, a non married couple can break up, without lawyers, courts and tons of money and anguish on the line.
If taking a 50% chance of having to hire a lawyer, spend tons of money on that and court appearances is a good investment to you, then id like to announce that i got dirt and grass to sell to you.