Rape

FCKH8 Uses Little Girls As Props in Abhorrent Viral Video About Rape

|

FCKH8
FCKH8 / Youtube

What's the worst way to fight sexism? Certainly this deeply disturbing viral video, produced by progressive clothing line FCKH8, is a serious contender.

The video has been panned—by all people of taste—for its startling use of young girls, ages 6-13, who are made to rattle off the usual false statistics about sexual assault and the gender pay gap. The video's gimmick is that the girls are dressed up as polite princesses, but launch into profane tirades to make their points. A sampling (each line is spoken by a different kid):

"What is more offensive? — A little girl saying fuck — Or the fucking unequal and sexist way — Society treats girls and women? Here's some words more fucked up — than the word 'fuck' — pay inequality!

As expected, the sight of little girls cursing like drunken sailors enraged some social conservatives. But with respect to my own libertarian sensibilities, the swearing is by far the least offensive thing about the video.

Using kids as props in ideological propaganda videos is disgusting. It's inherently exploitative, since there is little chance the youngest of the girls understands a thing about the perspective she's selling. Worse still, the girls are being taught that screaming expletives at people who disagree with them is an effective or praiseworthy form of advocacy. As someone who frequently writes about women's issues relating to campus due process, I can say for a fact that the current debate between far-left feminists and their critics does not need any additional hysterics. And while I would never deny that a well-timed fuck or two can help get a point across, cursing shouldn't be an 11-year-old's crutch in a public policy debate.

But worst of all is the actual point the profane princesses are trying to make about sexism. The almost-certainly-false statistic about rape makes a groan-inducing appearance: The girls gleefully count off "One, two, three, four five," before proclaiming that, statistically speaking, one of them will be raped. "Which one of us will it be?" wonders one of the girls. So, in addition to using kids as props in service of a distorted perspective on feminism, the video's producers want a bunch of little girls to think one of them is going to be raped.

The insanity of it all speaks to the obvious falsehood inherent in the one-in-five statistic. If two in every ten women actually experienced sexual assault while at a college, for instance, the problem would demand immediate intervention, not some laughably inadequate quibbling over the definition of consent. If one in every five cars broke down and caused its driver serious harm, automobile factories would be condemned as public health hazards. Similarly, if colleges were veritable production lines of rape, it would be necessary to shut them down.

Thankfully, the statistic has been repeatedly debunked. No, American women don't have to endure Somalia-levels of rape; rape has declined substantially in recent decades and continues to fall. Whatever the severity of the campus rape problem, it is assuredly not as bad as two biased surveys with small sample sizes and self-selection problems suggested it was.

Trying to scare people into believing they are in much greater danger than they actually are is contemptible. When children are the targets of such efforts, it's even worse.

At the end of the video, the ringleaders of this horror show appear on camera to tell viewers that if they reacted negatively to the swearing, rather than the sexism, they are part of the problem. And "fuck that sexist shit," says one of the kids.

It's worth keeping in mind that these people probably aren't as crazy as they seem. FCKH8 is a brand that uses videos to sell T-shirts to self-identified progressives—or at least, the kind of progressives who think buying T-shirts counts as activism, bless them. I don't hold FCKH8's business model against it; selling T-shirts to rabid anti-capitalists is always good for a laugh (see: Guevara, Che). (Predictably enough, the money-making aspect was the only thing Jezebel didn't like about the video.)

But for fuck's sake, don't use children as props, don't make them scream obscenities and lies, and don't try to frighten them into thinking they are in imminent danger of being raped.

NEXT: New York Doctor Has Ebola

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. progressive clothing line

    So Che Guevara items?

    1. You know who else had a progressive clothing line…

  2. How low will these people go? Would any thinking person want their child exploited like this? This county is safer than any time in recent history ,yet,scares like this ,ebola and ‘terrorism’ are constantly held up as the coming of the four horse men.Oh and 9-11 changed every think,I need a drink,it’s noon somewhere.

  3. thing,I do need a drink

  4. One of the more disturbing things I have seen. I am not sure who is worse, the idiot who thought this was a good idea, the person who agreed and said “yeah, let’s go with it” or the parents who let their girls act in it.

    1. It is entertaining in that the leftwing radical feminists see this as perfectly fine, when it’s just some asshole capitalist greedy profiteers exploiting these little girls and the feminist’s prejudices to make a buck.

      1. I do feel bad for those little girls, though. They have no idea what they’re doing, but this video will follow them for their entire lives.

        1. They’re young enough that I doubt it will be their entire lives.

          Having kids raised in the shit-storm of enviro-doom education. I, honestly, have an optimistic view of this; these girls will be burnt out on this video by this time next year and ashamed of it in less than 10. Hopefully, they’ll be ashamed of their parents’ behavior for a lot longer.

    2. The parents are far and away the more despicable people. It’s one thing to whore yourself out, it’s another to whore someone else out for a buck.

      1. Pimps gotta make a livin too, knowmasayin?

      2. By whoring their daughters out like this, they are essentially okaying rape.

    3. Needs moar red buttons that explodes people.

    4. One of the more disturbing things I have seen. I am not sure who is worse, the idiot who thought this was a good idea, the person who agreed and said “yeah, let’s go with it” or the parents who let their girls act in it.

      Yes.

  5. WTF FCKH8??

    1. I still don’t know what good a file check is going to do them.

      1. Although a fact check might be of some use.

  6. The only talking point I find more tiresome than this bogus sexual assault meme is the women’s wage mean. I honestly have never seen a more blatant disregard to what the reality of the situation is and the politics of it in my entire short life.

    1. I honestly have never seen a more blatant disregard to what the reality of the situation is and the politics of it in my entire short life.

      Stick around, as Sir. Winston Churchill* famously said “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”

      *or Mark Twain

      1. I get that, but in this case all you have to do to counter the argument is to throw their own numbers back in their face.

        1. These people also believe that raising the minimum wage won’t hurt employment, and that companies will discriminate even against their fiscal interest.

          So, numbers won’t do anything to convince them.

          1. Speaking of which…the Wall Street Journal published this little gem today.

            http://online.wsj.com/articles…..1413934569

            I’m sure they’ll blame heartless old McDonald’s for them losing their jobs too, and for being unable to find other jobs. Even though it’s exactly what they asked for…they were just too stupid to know what they were asking for and too lazy to do any research.

            1. Correction…WSJ published two days ago. I just saw it today.

        2. Idle (Or any other commenter at Reason), let’s see those numbers. I would be interested to hear your read of the data.

          1. Because 5 minutes on Google is too difficult for you…

            http://www.cbsnews.com/news/th…..lete-myth/

            http://online.wsj.com/news/art…..2504707048

              1. and finally a little YouTube action…

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow

                Hey Reason, how about having verified accounts or something so I only have to create one post? Seriously.

                1. Thanks, Rob. I appreciate it.

            1. Didn’t know about the difference in unemployment rate. Apart from the obvious inferences the article draws from it, a higher unemployment rate by itself would justify a significant gender pay gap, since a higher risk of job loss needs to be compensated for by a (disproportionately) higher salary.

        3. Someone needs to femsplain to you that logic and consistency are merely social constructs.

        4. That doesn’t work, because most of them are of the mindset that the low-skill pink-collar career choices they make–such as social work and waitressing–should pay the exact same as careers in medicine or software development.

    2. Hey, that’s companies hire only women, they do the exact same work for only 70% of the cost. Profits galore!!

      1. Yeah man, that’s what I’ve been saying to leftist hipsters for a long time… THE MAN is ripping off (who-ever)??? Then YOU go hire them and pay them 80% (not 70%) and you can steal all their workers, and STILL make a fat profit! … But you and I believe in facts, and lefties deal in “feelings”, especially feelings of their own moral superiority, so we can just never reach their tiny-tiny brain segments that might once have known “logic”…

        1. I’ve a physician friend I graduated college with. He says decades ago, most med-school students were men, and most med-school grads practiced medicine for 3, 4, 5 decades after graduating. Now in recent decades, half or more of med-school students are female, keeping it all “politically correct”? And today, most male med-school grads continue to practice medicine for decades. MOST (70-80%, I don’t know) female grads get out of med school, meet some young hotshot med resident? And get married, stay home to raise kinds, and never practice medicine! To make this all “fair”, the leftists propose, what? Taxpayers paying stay-at-home med-school grads, physician’s pay??!? Or enslaving the med-school babes and MAKING them practice medicine? ? Equal pay, my ass! How about equal freedom, all around, and let the chips fall where they may!

          1. How about equal freedom, all around, and let the chips fall where they may!

            Racist sexist bigot homophobe!

      2. See, let me explain this to you.

        Corporations are greedy profit maximizers, that’s why they are paying women less.

        Corporations are evil and run by sexists, that’s why they are hiring more men than women, even though it doesn’t maximize their profit.

        1. (Since there seem to be some humor impaired people here, that should have had a “/sarcasm” tag.)

    3. Global Warming has got to be worse. The money that’s been burned on account of it should make god weep out fifty Cat-5 hurricanes per day.

    4. “The only talking point I find more tiresome than this bogus sexual assault meme is the women’s wage mean.”

      Tiresome because it’s true? I’ve never seen those wage statistics disputed. It’s not blatant disregard for the reality of the situation and the politics. One doesn’t disregard an issue by producing a video and posting it on the internet. Watch the video again, carefully this time. It’s about opposition to the situation and the politics, too.

      1. I’ve never seen those wage statistics disputed.

        Well, let’s fix that right now. See my responses to SimonJester at 11:58 AM.

        https://reason.com/blog/2014/10…..nt_4853640

        1. Thanks for that. I followed your first link to the CBS story and read it. Note that nowhere in the story is the accuracy of the claim that women earn 75c on a man’s dollar disputed.

          They claim that for the same work a man and a women will receive the same pay. Interesting and possibly true but irrelevant. Men and women do not do the same work. If your job is to wipe the snot off children’s faces, the chances that you are a woman are overwhelming. That’s the reality of the situation.

          1. Wait — so, you are suggesting that everybody be paid the same, no matter what job they do? Or are you suggesting that the “violence inherrent in the system,” which you say is undisputable, since more women than men work at daycares around the country, keeps women from achieving in traditionally male-dominated areas. These are two VERY different problems with two VERY different solutions. Be careful not to confuse them.

            1. “Wait — so, you are suggesting that….”

              No, I’m not suggesting either of those things. What I’m suggesting, for the third time now, is that the claim that women earn 75c to a man’s dollar is accurate. It’s not a ‘bogus meme’ as Idle Hands claimed it was. You evidently agree with me unless one of the other links you provided me with say otherwise. Time is short, I only read the first.

              But let’s get down to brass tacks. Looking at the CBS report, it’s clear that women’s wages are discounted because of their traditional role of taking up the lion’s share of the responsibilities of child rearing. Men have more time on their hands and are able to put in longer hours. I don’t think this is particularly controversial. Nor is it controversial to point out that women’s most precious and essential productive capacity is her ability to produce and raise children. Men play their role too, of course, but without the labour of women producing the next generation, society would eventually come grinding to a halt.

              1. The reality of the situation is that if a women decides to take what she produces to the market place and hand it over to the highest bidder, at best, child services would confiscate her children without compensating her. Or even making a gesture in compensating her. At worst, she would end up in prison.

                A woman is denied access to a market where she could trade in her most precious and essential capacities, so she is forced to enter the same market as everyone else, a market where her strongest assets are seen as liabilities and her worth is discounted for it. It’s a shitty situation and I’m surprised that libertarians can’t put aside their contempt for women and appreciate their plight.

                1. ” I’m surprised that libertarians can’t put aside their contempt for women”

                  You’re a woman?

                2. If a woman wants to put in 40 to 60 hour weeks go right ahead. Stick your kid in day care or get yr hubby to take on the reaposonsibility. Don’t expect me to pay for your choices.

                  Also, women’s pay relative to men is not just a result of child rearing. Take a look at on the job deaths and major injuries. It is not even close. Don’t imagine we will be hearing screams for equality in those figures any time soon.

                  1. “Take a look at on the job deaths and major injuries. It is not even close.”

                    Nobody is paid to die or get injured on the job. The idea is to avoid death and injury.

                3. Oh, FFS. Here is your fucking proof that the wage gap is bullshit, Trollcakes.

                  A woman is denied…

                  You see, that’s your problem. You talk in passive voice, like all of these things just happen to women. Children just fall out of the sky one day onto unsuspecting women. Women are forced at gunpoint to become waitresses, or social workers, or nurses, or easy-to-get, low-skilled jobs that are considered low-hanging fruit, educationally speaking. Women are forced to give up their MDs and MBAs to become stay-home mommies.

                  No, they’re not. None of these things are forced on women. You can choose not to have children. You can choose not to have children with men who are not good parenting material. You can choose a more challenging field of study, like computer science or electrical engineering. You can choose to take online courses to improve your career prospects, even if you’re currently stuck in a low-paying, pink-collar job. You can choose to work full-time vs. part time.

                  Your choice to grunt out babies does not benefit your employer one bit. Your employer is not obligated to subsidize it. Your employer isn’t, and should never be, obligated to pay you full-time wages for part-time work. You should never be allowed to advance at the same rates as full-time workers when you have half the time in.

              2. The problem is that most people will attribute that wage gap to pure discrimination.

                Women aren’t denied any access point to the market. Social services, caretaker position, teaching professions and nanny services are dominated by women, so the market has found the places for women’s productive capacity. I (a man) applied for receptionist positions dozens of times in my life and have NEVER heard back from the employer. I can make a mean coffee and answer phones well, I’ll tell you what.

                Meanwhile, in the any industry that requires hard physical labor and long stressful hours, it’s just not possible for women to earn the same amount as men, who are likely more experienced and established in that field. And having the same job description as the man doesn’t necessarily mean a woman can match or exceed his production or output.

                1. “Social services, caretaker position, teaching professions and nanny services are dominated by women, so the market has found the places for women’s productive capacity.”

                  If a social worker, caretaker, teacher or nanny attempted to sell what they produce, a healthy bouncing baby, on the market, they would risk serious trouble with the law and uncompensated loss of their property. I see endless sympathies here for drug traffickers and producers who have similar difficulties. I see nothing but contempt for women.

                  1. “I (a man) applied for receptionist positions dozens of times in my life and have NEVER heard back from the employer. I can make a mean coffee and answer phones well, I’ll tell you what.”

                    Persistence pays off. Good luck.

                  2. How dare we oppose…human trafficking? WTF?

                    1. “How dare we oppose…human trafficking? WTF?”

                      If you are struggling to say you don’t see any libertarian free market solutions to the situation, I’m inclined to agree with you. I certainly don’t see any solutions on offer here. Comments here are either lies, Idle Hands, for example, or like GILMORE, frivolous irrelevancies.

                    2. I certainly don’t see any solutions on offer here.

                      You said

                      If a social worker, caretaker, teacher or nanny attempted to sell what they produce, a healthy bouncing baby, on the market, they would risk serious trouble with the law and uncompensated loss of their property.

                      None of those jobs “produce a healthy bouncing baby.” Those jobs provide services. They do sell “what they produce,” and it is legal.

                    3. “None of those jobs “produce a healthy bouncing baby.” Those jobs provide services. They do sell “what they produce,” and it is legal.”

                      I don’t know if I can make it any clearer: those social workers, caregivers etc are typically women whose wages are discounted because of their traditional role in rearing children. Have you still not understood this? Read the CBS article linked to earlier. It may do what I’m unable to.

                    4. I don’t know if I can make it any clearer: those social workers, caregivers etc are typically women whose wages are discounted because of their traditional role in rearing children. Have you still not understood this? Read the CBS article linked to earlier. It may do what I’m unable to.

                      What is it in the CBS article that you think implies this?

                    5. “What is it in the CBS article that you think implies this?”

                      There’s a section headed Why the gender wage gap is a myth or something like that. Many of the points raised are due to the traditional role of women in rearing children. Men having more time on their hands, to name one that I recall.

                    6. Right. I see what you are saying now. I don’t know why you think this a problem, though. If you have less time to work, you are going to work fewer hours thus earn less, etc.

                    7. Rearing children is work though. Unpaid work. And then when she goes to the job market to get money to pay the rent and buy food etc, she finds her labour discounted thanks to the men who would be otherwise lounging about at home while she’s taking care of the kids.

                      “I don’t know why you think this a problem, though. ”

                      Only because I’m looking at this from a woman’s point of view, even though I’m fag or anything like that. Just for the sake of argument. It’s a shitty deal for women. I wouldn’t trade places with them, no how.

                    8. You know damn well that I meant work as part of a job.

                      she finds her labour discounted thanks to the men who would be otherwise lounging about at home while she’s taking care of the kids.

                      WTF are you talking about? If a man works while the mother of his children is at home with the kids, she is going to benefit from that.

                    9. “If a man works while the mother of his children is at home with the kids, she is going to benefit from that.”

                      Much more typically it’s the other way round. The man benefits and the woman gets the shitty end of the deal.

                    10. “Much more typically it’s the other way round. The man benefits and the woman gets the shitty end of the deal.”

                      Why do you h8 chilllren!?!?!

                    11. Rearing children is work though. Unpaid work.

                      Oh, fucking hell. If a woman (or a man) doesn’t want the work of rearing kids, they don’t have to have them.

                      The stupidest implication you make here is that child-rearing is something that women should be compensated for monetarily rather than a basic social responsibility that goes back to the caveman days. Any stay-at-home parent demanding that their working spouse give them a salary and benefits would likely get kicked right out the door.

                    12. Rearing children is work though. Unpaid work.

                      Good, because it’s a personal lifestyle choice with dubious and inconsistent benefits at best. Nobody owes you a living for grunting out kids any more than anybody owes me a living for going SCUBA diving.

                    13. Women can “sell” their children through adoption services. It’s not phrased that way but a healthy white baby brings a serious premium.

                    14. In North Korea a woman or a man can “sell” their labour through employment services. That doesn’t make it a free market.

                    15. I’m sorry, but which “situation” is in need of a solution?

                  3. Well, whaddya know? The free market works after all. People pay more for things they value, and less for things that are less valuable/more common.

                    Nobody asked for or needs your “healthy bouncing baby.” You choose to have these; nobody forced you to. I guess nobody really needs them as much as the sentimental glurgey Johnson and Johnson commercials told you.

              3. is that the claim that women earn 75c to a man’s dollar is accurate

                No, it is not accurate, because that phrasing is misleading and tendentious.

                Men play their role too, of course, but without the labour of women producing the next generation, society would eventually come grinding to a halt.

                You’re a leftist, bigot, and sexist rolled all in one.

                1. “You’re a leftist, bigot, and sexist rolled all in one.”

                  No doubt about it, I’m a terrible person. I’d advise against your reading any more of my comments.

                  “No, it is not accurate, because that phrasing is misleading and tendentious.”

                  Don’t suppose you could provide me with the accurate and unmisleading figures, could you?

                  1. You’ve got a big brass pair of ’em to even mention “figures”, you dope you.

                    God help me, I’ve gone back and reread your posts trying to figure out just what the fuck your point is, and I’m damned if I can figure it out. As much as it pains me to say it, I swear to god I think you’re saying that women as a demographic make less money than men because many of them spend time raising children, which is, as you astutely pointed out, typically unpaid.

                    No shit.

                    Raising your kids isn’t a fucking business arrangement, generally speaking. It’s a choice people make. The general idea is that two parents have the shared objective of raising a happy, healthy child to a successful adulthood and make cooperative decisions towards accomplishing that objective.

                    Yeah, women tend to stay home with kids more than men. There are any number of biological, historical, and social reasons why this tends to be the case. If you’ve got problems with that, then fine, argue that point. But that’s not what you’re arguing, is it?

                    What exactly is your point???

                    1. “What exactly is your point???”

                      You seem to understand my point but insist that you don’t. To quote you briefly:

                      “The general idea is that two parents have the shared objective of raising a happy, healthy child to a successful adulthood and make cooperative decisions towards accomplishing that objective.”

                      These two parents will probably find somewhere along the way they need money. Easiest thing to do is to sell their labour on the job market. The man will find that he gets substantially more than his wife simply because it is assumed she will be burdened with the responsibilities of child rearing. Good for him – more money fewer responsibilities, bad for her – less money more responsibilities.

                      Not to mention that for woman’s most essential and irreplaceable productive capacity, child bearing and child rearing, that work goes entirely without wages and any attempts to sell the fruits of her labour in the market could easily land her in the slammer.

                    2. Good for him – more money fewer responsibilities, bad for her – less money more responsibilities.

                      You really think being the primary breadwinner isn’t a huge responsibility? You think a man putting in 40-60 hours a week–and then coming home on the weekend to execute endless “honey-do” lists–isn’t as “burdened” with responsibility as the mother?

                      Fuck off out of here with that. It’s pretty obvious you’ve never raised children in your life.

                    3. Not to mention that for woman’s most essential and irreplaceable productive capacity, child bearing and child rearing, that work goes entirely without wages and any attempts to sell the fruits of her labour in the market could easily land her in the slammer.

                      Probably because any animal in the kingdom can grunt out and rear young, so it’s not like it’s a special skill. Also, plenty of stupid women out there willing to keep gruntin’ out dem bebbehs without compensation, so why should anyone pay them?

                      You want to get paid for doing what any animal out there can do? Stop doing it. Go on strike. Maybe somebody will be willing to pay you to spread your legs and grunt out babies when there’s a shortage of them. Right now, there’s no shortage. If we need workers we can get them as immigrants. Your non-ability to do what any mammal can do does not earn you the right to someone else’s money.

                  2. No doubt about it, I’m a terrible person.

                    Glad you realize it. Try to change.

                    I’d advise against your reading any more of my comments.

                    No doubt. Like any good hatemonger, you want your critics to be silenced.

                    1. “Like any good hatemonger, you want your critics to be silenced.”

                      If you’re gonna be a hatemonger, be a good hatemonger, I always say.

          2. Note that nowhere in the story is the accuracy of the claim that women earn 75c on a man’s dollar disputed.

            That’s not the women’s wage meme. The women’s wage meme is that those wages are a result of discrimination.

            The 77 cents on the dollar comes from dividing the median income of women by the median income of mean. Yet, it routinely gets thrown around to support a notion of women being paid unfairly for equal work. Median income is not a statistic that tells anyone how many hours anyone is working or what kind of work anyone is performing. It breathtakingly and transparently dishonest to cite that figure in its often-cited context.

            1. “The women’s wage meme is that those wages are a result of discrimination.”

              That may be so, but it has nothing to do with anything I’ve written here. My point is that when women do go to the job market they typically receive 77c to a man’s dollar. And for their most vital, irreplaceable productive activity, giving us a healthy younger generation, they receive nothing. It’s a shitty situation and you shouldn’t be surprised at the bitching and moaning.

              1. That may be so, but it has nothing to do with anything I’ve written here.

                It has everything to do with what you’ve written. You started this conversation by claiming the meme is true.

                “The only talking point I find more tiresome than this bogus sexual assault meme is the women’s wage mean.”

                Tiresome because it’s true

                Don’t you remember?

                1. “Don’t you remember?”

                  I don’t have to remember. I can go back and read the exact words I wrote. I suggest you do the same. I started out by asking if anyone could dispute the claim that women’s wages on average were less than men’s. Nobody could, yet everyone seems extremely reluctant to admit the fact. If you have anything else to add, go ahead. If all you’ve got left is to quote my own words back at me, we can end it here.

                  1. No, you started out saying that the women’s wage meme is true.

                    Are you backing down from that statement?

                    Is “…women are still paid 23% less than men for the same work” a true statement?

                    1. Somehow, “women are paid less for doing different work than men and that is unfair,” is not what you hear the constant moaning about. Pretending it is so is ridiculous.

                    2. “Are you backing down from that statement?”

                      What if I do? What would that settle? The one and true meaning of THE WOMEN’S WAGE MEME?

                    3. What it would settle, or rather end, is this obvious attempt to detract from how full of shit the “equal pay” zealots are by occasionally trying to focus on a division quotient.

                    4. A worthy goal. Unequal pay for men and women. A slogan to run on in the upcoming elections. Now, on to those “equal work” and “equal opportunity” zealots who put their own perverse twist on the very same number.

                      Men and women do not do equal work. The work they do is different, and that’s been the case traditionally. Equal opportunity? A man sitting on the couch all weekend watching tv has almost endless opportunity to get up off his ass and do some work. A woman with a kid that needs cleaning and feeding and watching over? Not so much opportunity to leave the house to punch some boss’s clock.

                    5. No one forces anyone to have children so I don’t see what your point is. You seem upset that some women prioritize taking care of children over their careers.

                    6. And he seems to be operating under the assumption that it is the employer’s responsibility to give their employees a salary commensurate with their life choices, rather than with the quality or value of their work in their particular role.

                      Basically, mtrueman doesn’t seem to understand what function a salary has in employer/employee relationships.

                    7. “No one forces anyone to have children so I don’t see what your point is.”

                      Whether or not a person is forced to have children or not is irrelevant. I’m sure that in countries where abortion is illegal women’s wages are still discounted. If you’ve got information to the contrary, please share it.

              2. My point is that when women do go to the job market they typically receive 77c to a man’s dollar.

                That isn’t a meaningful statement and it isn’t relevant to anything.

                What’s relevant is that a typical woman going into the job market will be paid about the same as a typical man with similar qualifications taking the same job.

                Another relevant statement is that women consciously make choices that result in them making less money; that’s because women value money less then men. Equalizing pay would mean forcing women to do things they don’t want to do.

                And for their most vital, irreplaceable productive activity, giving us a healthy younger generation, they receive nothing.

                Bullshit. They are frequently supported by their husbands, or by child support from the father. They also receive tons of government support. Of course, none of that shows up in the income statistics, but that’s an error with the statistics; they get the money.

                1. “What’s relevant is that a typical woman going into the job market will be paid about the same as a typical man with similar qualifications taking the same job.”

                  Why is that relevant when you admit that women and men do different work?

                  1. People getting paid differently for doing different work isn’t discriminatory. The justification for government intervention is that there is discrimination. A large and vocal group of people being wrong is relevant. It was the basis for the article and this conversation.

                    1. “People getting paid differently for doing different work isn’t discriminatory.”

                      I haven’t said a thing about discrimination or government intervention, expect about laws prohibiting women from selling what they produce on the market. Laws which you seem to favour. Now you seem to be against intervention.

                  2. Why is that relevant when you admit that women and men do different work?

                    Because what work people do is a choice. Women choose occupations and careers that pay less, hence they get paid less.

                    1. “Because what work people do is a choice.”

                      But it’s not that simple, unfortunately. To quote the words of one of the other posters here:

                      “Yeah, women tend to stay home with kids more than men. There are any number of biological, historical, and social reasons why this tends to be the case.”

                      If you disagree with this, take it up with wwhorton. If you think tampering with these biological, historical and social trends should be off the table, then make your case. So far you’ve not done so.

                    2. I haven’t said a thing about discrimination or government intervention, expect about laws prohibiting women from selling what they produce on the market.

                      I already told you those are service jobs.

                      There are any number of biological, historical, and social reasons why this tends to be the case.

                      I didn’t see anyone say anything about a lack of choice.

                      If you think tampering with these biological, historical and social trends should be off the table, then make your case. So far you’ve not done so.

                      You haven’t said that you wanted to “tamper with biological, historical and social trends” until now so why would I have made a case against it? You haven’t made any case for it beyond “people make choices I don’t like” which is petty and authoritarian reason for wanting to do something.

                    3. “I didn’t see anyone say anything about a lack of choice.”

                      Naturally. Like me, I assume when you were born, you chose to be a male. Why would anyone choose differently?

                    4. I didn’t realize genitalia choose career paths.

                    5. Read the CBS article. Men and women do different work.

                    6. I’m pretty sure their brains made those choices. I await your scientific, peer-reviewed study proving the free will of genitalia.

                    7. “I’m pretty sure their brains made those choices.”

                      You got that from the CBS article or just made it up?

                    8. If you’re going to argue that another organ is responsible for decision making then be my guest.

          3. Chances are that if you’re crawling through sewers, killing your lungs in a coal mine, getting cancer from chemical fumes, or risk losing your limbs from a chainsaw, you’re a man. That’s the reality of the situation. And if you’re a man, you also live a few years less than a woman.

            You’re right: men and women do not do the same work. If gender equality in terms of outcome is the goal, then we need to make sure that women also take the shitty, dirty, and dangerous jobs that men do and get injured and killed at the same rate. How about it?

            1. Precisely. mtrueman’s head is in his ass. He’s arguing the tired old claim that “traditional women’s work is less valued than men’s work.” When in fact, it pays less because it’s less valuable, because fewer people are willing to do it. 93% of workplace injuries and deaths are men, men’s jobs have less flexible hours, longer commutes, are generally less fulfilling and more psychologically strenuous (part of why men commit suicide so much more, and likely why women who do ‘men’s jobs’ commit suicide more often than women who do traditional female jobs do.

              Women (not all of course, but many) tend to trade in money for longer, safer, more comfortable lives with more ‘fulfilling’ jobs, and of course more vacations and sickdays. And why wouldn’t they? Most such women can work as school teachers and still live comfortable lives simply by marrying a better-paid man.

              Most inane perhaps is mtruthman’s claim that women’s roles’ ‘greater biological necessity’, i.e. rearing children, entitles them to get paid more. I suppose he also believes a fry cook at McDonald’s should get paid more than a nuclear physicist because food is more biological necessary than the generation of electricity.

              1. ” “traditional women’s work is less valued than men’s work.” When in fact, it pays less because it’s less valuable”

                Thanks for clearing that up for me.

                “…because fewer people are willing to do it”

                So the fewer people willing to do a job, the less valuable it is? Something tells me you haven’t put a lot of thought into these comments. But do keep it up. There are a few laughs buried here and there.

            2. My position is, if we really want women to earn the same amount as men, do the following: abolish alimony, compulsory child support, assistance for single mothers, female-only scholarships and education programs, and make it socially unacceptable for a woman to live off a man’s income or to let a man buy her drinks or dinner. Do those things, and watch how fast women will start majoring in engineering instead of gender studies, putting their careers first, marrying less, having fewer children, working more dangerous and less rewarding jobs, etc. You’d have a lot more rich and powerful women. And also a lot more homeless women (a step toward equality, since 80% are men), more female suicides, more female workplace deaths, etc. too. But then again actual equality isn’t what feminists want. Stupid as they are, they don’t realize that by opposing father’s custodial rights and supporting female entitlements, they’re actually causing the very gender earnings gap they complain about. But then again maybe it’s deliberate, as if they didn’t create it, then it might go away and they wouldn’t be able to complain about it anymore.

              1. “But then again actual equality isn’t what feminists want. ”

                But actual equality is what you want. We’re quite the social engineer, aren’t we.

      2. Are ye a leftist hipster?!?! THE MAN is ripping off (who-ever)??? Then YOU go hire them and pay them 80% (not 70%) and you can steal all their workers, and STILL make a fat profit! … But you and I believe in facts, and lefties deal in “feelings”, especially feelings of their own moral superiority, so we can just never reach their tiny-tiny brain segments that might once have known “logic”… The wymin are all gettin’ ripped off, ya says? WHY in the HELL are you not getting RICH RIGHT NOW from this “fact”?

      3. “It’s about opposition to the situation and the politics, too.”

        I just saw children swearing?

    5. The Feminists are desperate. If they sat back and admitted that the West’s major problem in terms of gender equality was troglodyte immigrants from third-world pest holes they would be shunned by all their Liberal Intellectual friends. Also, if they weren’t focusing on nonsense, they might have to face what that they have no clue what to do when somebody gets around to suggesting that “Gee, women are in combat now, maybe teenage girls should have to register for the draft”.

      They don’t really have a reason to exist. They aren’t going to confront the horrible, real ,sexism of places like Iran, because somebody might shoot them and they are basically cowards. A previous generation got them the vote. More women go to college than men. The Pink collar ghetto is largely a myth, and where it isn’t a myth it exists because of factors the Feminists can’t afford to confront.

      They really ought to fold up their tents and go become a Tuesday afternoon bridge club.

      1. They aren’t going to confront the horrible, real sexism of places like Saudi Arabia because somebody might shoot them and they are basically cowards.

        FTFY

      2. Women in combat? sounds like starship troopers.. non stop exploding aliens and tons of sex. Lets make this happen.

  7. Yet if I encouraged my (hypothetical) daughter to swear like that at school, I’d get CPS called on me by the end of the day…

    1. What? “Fuck off, slaver” isn’t the reflexive answer tought to your hypothetical children?

  8. Whatever the severity of the campus rape problem, it is assuredly not as bad as two biased surveys with small sample sizes and self-selection problems suggested it was.

    Keeping in mind that at no point did these biased surveys with small sample sizes and self-selection problems say 1 in 5 women would be raped, rather 1 in 5 women would be the victim of “sexual assault”. The biased surveys with small sample sizes and self-selection problems then waterboarded the expression “sexual assault” into meaninglessness.

    1. Keeping in mind that at no point did these biased surveys with small sample sizes and self-selection problems say 1 in 5 women would be raped, rather 1 in 5 women would be the victim of “sexual assault”.

      It’s worse than that. The definition of “sexual assault” was so broad in (at least) one of the studies that pretty much everyone on earth has been sexually assaulted.

      Like the phone game where the first kid whispers; “Grandma give you an unwanted kiss on the cheek.” and the last kid whispers, “rape.”

  9. Strange to say this on Reason, of all fucking places but this:

    As expected, the sight of little girls cursing like drunken sailors enraged some social conservatives. But with respect to my own libertarian sensibilities, the swearing is by far the least offensive thing about the video.

    is very odd.

    Are we really at the point where “social conservatives” have some kind of monopoly on thinking that it’s fucked up parenting and advocacy to have little girls swear like sailors? Kids have no social graces that aren’t taught by adults; it is fucked up to act like socially deficient behavior on the part of children should be encouraged or laughed off, since what you are actually shrugging off is piss-poor parenting. Swearing is no skin off my teeth — there’s a time and a place for it though, and I sure as hell don’t sound like Goodfellas when I’m saying something for professional public consumption. No, I don’t want it legally enforced; feel free to add all the other standard libertarian shibboleths RE: the distinction between government and society — but it is a socially deficient behavior and it is fucked up to teach kids this as part of a public advocacy campaign.

    1. Re: The Immaculate Trouser,

      Are we really at the point where “social conservatives” have some kind of monopoly on thinking that it’s fucked up parenting and advocacy to have little girls swear like sailors?

      Only inside the Beltway, IT. Only inside the Beltway.

    2. I don’t think the implication is that it’s fine and dandy to encourage your pre-teens to scream “fuck”, only that it’s the least of the creepy and offensive things in the video. There have always been shitty parents who let their kids get away with saying naughty things. The issue here is beyond shitty parenting and into really fucking creepy exploitation of your own children in service of your political religion.

      1. Compared to the parents who let/encouraged their young boys to sleep over at Michael Jaskson’s house these parents are the salt of the earth.

        But that isn’t a very high bar of course.

    3. It’s a way to cut off the actual SHOCK VALUE of the ad. This is a deliberate attempt to be socially transgressive and the feminists really want people to complain about the swearing so they can act smug and justified. Ignoring it and focusing on the blatant lies of the commercial is a far more beneficial option.

    4. If you are shocked by little girls swearing like sailors, then you are obviously a social conservative troglodyte who is intolerant of other people’s free speech and expression. Why, next thing you’ll probably be objecting to assless chaps in the next LGBTQXYZ Day Parade.

      1. All chaps are ass less.

        It’s not wearing pants under the chaps in public that is the problem.

        But you know that I’m sure. Just joking.

        1. Today I learned.

          Worn in this manner, they are colloquially referred to as “assless” chaps, despite the redundancy of the term.

          1. Now you know, and knowing is the half the battle!

    5. “Are we really at the point where “social conservatives” have some kind of monopoly on thinking that it’s fucked up parenting and advocacy to have little girls swear like sailors?”

      This does seem to be a statement from somebody that’s out of touch with American society. I’m pretty sure that if you were to poll 10,000 American’s about the appropriateness of young children cussing in a promotional video, you’d get a large majority agreeing that it was inappropriate.

      I think this was a cocktail party type throw away line, to prove that the author wasn’t some kind of un-hip social conservative.

      1. And yet every child curses outside the purview of his/her parents.

  10. Holy crap, look at it on youtube and see the huge comment by WildChildBLACKOPS. I’d almost think he was one of us except for the gratuitous use of ‘cunt’.
    As mentioned in a reply: “greatest youtube comment ive ever read”

  11. Using kids as props in ideological propaganda videos is disgusting. It’s inherently exploitative, since there is little chance the youngest of the girls understands a thing about the perspective she’s selling.

    It sounds like abuse.

    Ahh! See? Exploitation of little girls! Abuse! Sounds like a war on women, and for P-R-O-F-I-T! Ahhhh!

    So I’ll be sittin’ here with my cuppa waitin’ for the feminists to react violently against this gross display of child abuse and feminine exploitation….

    1. Feminists can have their cake and eat it too: they get out their message and they can complain about the objectification and sexualization of women.

      1. We live in a country where a woman can attempt to rape a ten year old boy (as happened just last week, a teacher and her student no less) and get nothing but community service for it. It’s no surprise therefore that these feminists think they can do basically anything women impunity. The very idea that rules or standards apply to them is ‘misogynist.’

  12. Julie Borowski (sp?) did a good parody of this thing.
    I’d link it, but iphone.

    1. ‘good’ parody is subjective I guess.

      I could only watch 19s of the original and 26s of Julie’s.

      Maybe if I had daughters it wouldn’t feel like a cheese grater on my brain. It’s like trying to consume a political message from Alvin And the Chipmunks.

  13. That video is all kinds of fucked up!

  14. Is this really a comparison feminists want to invite? Spoiled, foul-mouthed, petulant princesses? I mean, it demonstrates a degree of self awareness that’s downright shocking, but you wouldn’t think they’d want to advertise it.

    1. Re: PM,

      Is this really a comparison feminists want to invite? Spoiled, foul-mouthed, petulant princesses?

      No. Real feminists are not princesses. Which is why they’re getting to them while they’re young.

      1. I think this use of “princess” is intended in the sense of “someone who acts like they rule the world”.

    2. I don’t know. I think it’s kind of apt, wouldn’t you think? Their argument for “inequality” is reduced to anachronistic statistics and the debate over who should be imbued with Divine Right…

      Or: I want more! Gimme! I deserve it! More more more more!!!! More than you!! I dezzzerve iiiit moooooore than you!!!

    3. *snerk*

  15. It also appeared that one of the little darlings when they repeated the same stupid debunked 77 cent statistic commited a crime when they cut a dollar bill. Have to rewatch the video later to see if it was real or not.

  16. ‘best comment ever’? =

    I’m going to be really indignant about this as soon as I’m done jerking off!

  17. Maybe I’m a real monster but it made me chuckle to hear little kids swearing like that. I guess you can tell I don’t have kids. Yes, of course their parents are the real monsters for hiring them out as political props a really despicable way.

    1. Not as monstrous as me. I’m thinking “ah, when I open a business, these kids will make excellent custodians who are working to pay off their parents’ debts.”

  18. Oh, Robby. You disgusting sexist monster. You’re probably raping one of the reason interns right this second, aren’t you?

  19. So wait, these people would NEVER complain about religious parents indoctrinating and using their children to justify a point right?

  20. Next time people want an innocent someone to deliver a nasty message, make it a parrot, not a child.

  21. A couple thoughts: Progressives whince when children outside a certain demographic swear, and label it trashy. Yet, I guess it’s the cause, not the actions, that are morally atrocious.

    Also, if you have to use/abuse kids as a crutch for your political argument, you have no argument.

    So, in an odd way, I’m optimistic, though reservedly so – if the proggies have stooped to this kind of low, they know they’re not doing well.

  22. It surprises me that the people who believe this are more likely to buy a t-shirt, than invest in a quality hand gun, ammo, and training.

  23. Eh, informed consent of the children and their parents? Sounds like free will, self determination, and private contract to me.

    The only thing abhorrent here comes from the author himself really…lazy, dismissive, and soulless work here sir.

    The lazy bit: scholar.google.com, learn to love it.
    Best large sample size data survey collected recently is the The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (link below). It has it’s flaws, but it’s a foundation of data from which we can work.

    Why you’re a dismissive asshole:
    Technically you’re right about the college age group…and then you stop. You didn’t even research your own position for Christ sake.

    The above survey demonstrated a 18.3% *lifetime* incidence of sexual assault for women: 1 in 5.46 women’ll experience a forcible sexual assault in their lifetime.

    But then you penned this blurb: “don’t use children as props…don’t try to frighten them into thinking they are in imminent danger of being raped.”

    “What is the danger for kids?” anyone with a soul might ask. The aforementioned survey demonstrated 42.2% of those reporting a rape having stated it occurred before age 18. So about 1 in 13 women where raped as little girls.

    At no time did you express any meaningful regard for ‘the children’ except for your own lazy opinion.

    That makes you the asshole in this instance I fear, not FCKH8.

    http://www.cdc.gov/violencepre…..2010-a.pdf

    1. yaaaaaaaaaawn – cool story, bro

    2. It has it’s flaws, but it’s a foundation of data from which we can work.

      Sorry, you lost me there. It’s abundantly clear that the article is of the opposite conclusion, calling into question the usefulness of the data.

      The rest of your rant was based on this premise, and is pointless if the quality of the data is called into question.

      1. He’s a victim of his own hubris.

        He calls the author lazy for not doing his research and then cites the data, when the author isn’t criticising the data exactly, but the inconsistent narrative it generates;

        Either the reporting is much lower than 12% or the rate is much lower than 18.3%, or both.

        I would add that *trends* in the narrative don’t hold up. Considering the above, if 42% report being raped by age 18, but 80% of all rapes occur by age 25 (according to the CDC) then college rapists are unusually adept at raping former victims or victims who they know won’t report.

        Considering the CDC deliberately excluded law enforcement to encourage reporting, ruling out the notion that all of the rapes were being reported were convictable offenses seems naive.

        More relevantly, I don’t see FakeBritishGuy proposing any fixes let alone any that are better than a horrible youtube video.

      2. Yeah, I mean, if you’re basing your conclusions off of a body of data which you admit is flawed, what use is that data exactly?

    3. “the above survey demonstrated a 18.3% *lifetime* incidence of sexual assault for women: 1 in 5.46 women’ll experience a forcible sexual assault in their lifetime.”

      Those above studies define sexual assault as including things like “if you’ve ever had sex while drunk

      I’m surprised they couldn’t get the number up above 50%.

      If you strip the Ad Hom out of your post, you’ve basically said nothing.

      1. To clarify how unbelievably bullshit the data you rely on actually is…

        Not only can you claim ‘sexual violence’ if you ever had sex while drunk *even once*…

        …but what if you threw someone a *sympathy fuck*?

        “??wearing you down by repeatedly asking for sex, or showing they were unhappy?

        Also included in their definition of “sexual violence”… STALKING (oooh??)

        Which includes…

        “?left you unwanted messages? This includes text or voice messages.
        ?made unwanted phone calls to you? This includes hang-up calls.
        ?sent you unwanted emails, instant messages, or sent messages through websites like MySpace
        or Facebook?
        ?left you cards, letters, flowers, or presents when they knew you didn’t want them”

        OMG the horrors.

        1-in-5 women might get an Embarrassing Secret Santa??

        RAPE KULTUR!!

        Do you read the studies you cite, or do you leave that up for your betters?

        1. God that shit pisses me off. Someone very close to me was actually, really, in actual fact raped. Don’t diminish the very real crime of rape by diluting the definition with things like unsolicited Valentine’s cards.

          1. “Don’t diminish the very real crime of rape by diluting the definition with things like unsolicited Valentine’s cards.”

            But then most of these mendacious douche-nozzles couldn’t claim their victimhood bonafides.

    4. FakeBritishGuy|10.24.14 @ 12:55PM|#
      “Eh, informed consent of the children and their parents? Sounds like free will, self determination, and private contract to me.”

      Hard to believe, but some brain-dead proggy is gonna defend this hogwash.
      Naturally with lies and misdirection; what else to proggies do?

    5. Shouldn’t the CDC be trying to prevent Ebola or something?

    6. Eh, informed consent of the children and their parents? Sounds like free will, self determination, and private contract to me.

      The fact that we think this should be legal doesn’t mean we approve of its morality.

      The above survey demonstrated a 18.3% *lifetime* incidence of sexual assault for women: 1 in 5.46 women’ll experience a forcible sexual assault in their lifetime.

      Yes. The survey is bullshit. Rape statistics are a matter of legal record, not politically motivated random dial telephone surveys.

  24. the girls are being taught that screaming expletives at people who disagree with them is an effective or praiseworthy form of advocacy

    And soon enough, they will be lobbing absurd, incoherent ad-homs like good little progs.

  25. Actual facts or statistics don’t matter to SJWs. Only the larger narrative.

  26. When I think it can’t get any worse, it does. I mean, I don’t even…

  27. my neighbor’s sister-in-law makes $89 /hr on the computer . She has been unemployed for seven months but last month her payment was $20812 just working on the computer for a few hours. navigate to this site…

    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  28. I think that the acronymnal FCKH8 and its implications winds up with the flaw of making sure you read it with a space in there. Otherwise, I’m just getting “Fuckhate,” and I’m not sure it’s giving off the same vibe.

    So that’s my two cents on this garbage that I won’t even watch. PM’s comment about self-awareness was spot-on, but I’m not sure this was done with one iota of self-awareness whatsoever.

  29. This video and the people who produced it and support it are ridiculous. People who exploit children for their own gains are disgusting

  30. my co-worker’s mother makes $71 /hr on the laptop . She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her payment was $17334 just working on the laptop for a few hours. published here

    —————-http://shorx.com/onlineatm

  31. Omg, this is terrible! What the hell :O

  32. “Julie Borowski Brilliantly Dismantles FCKH8?s Viral Video”

    http://benswann.com/julie-boro…..ral-video/

  33. my co-worker’s mother makes $71 /hr on the laptop . She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her payment was $17334 just working on the laptop for a few hours. published here

    —————-http://shorx.com/onlineatm

    1. I ber your co-worker’s father can make 23% more than that!

  34. Can you have some spare time to sit back in your chair having your laptop with you and making some money online for some interesting online work said Jenny Francis in the party last nightsee more what is for you there to increase your pocket money??.

    http://shorx.com/clickforsurvey

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.