NationStates Jolt Archive

There is a world of difference between "should" as in "I think it's a good idea" (e.g. "You should wear your blue dress to dinner tonight; it really looks nice on you.") and "should" as in a responsibility or obligation (e.g. "Parents should make sure their children receive essential medical care."). Which do you mean?

Excellent distinction. I see that the use of examples makes your explanation clearer than mine.

And BE is wrong. Self-interest is not an obligation to others. This thinking is quite common nowdays, perhaps because of legal compensation for injuries or because of welfare compensating people for disabilities which may be partly their own doing.

Or more generically, Tab A goes into Slot B or C.

What about slot D?

I can sort of grasp this concept, but it leaves me feeling a bit puzzled.
If rape was about power as opposed to sexual attraction/sex, then why bother having sex with the individual? Why not just beat the person into a coma?

Because rape is, to many, more humiliating than a beating. I know I (a woman) would much rather get my ass kicked than be raped. I imagine it's the same for many men.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? I'm not describing myself nor basing these opinions off myself, I'm basing purely on the observation of other people. Fine you can all come up with as many false accusations and lies about me as you want. I'm fine with it because sooner or later a Mods going to deal with you all accordingly.

Yeeeah, somehow I don't see Kat or Ard flying to your defense.

Ah... I see, so you don't actually consider him a danger, it was just invective?

Dude, you're making this way too serious. All he meant (I think) is that SL's views are so messed up that he either needs therapy, or to move to a place with ideas as messed up as his.

I didn't excuse them I merely stating that the rapist is guilty but the woman is partially responsible for egging such people on. If she isn't trying to attract men in any way when the rapist decides to make a move then he is entirely to blame.

Question: If I go to a party dressed up smart and sexy to turn some girls' heads and a man takes this as an invitation to rape me, how is that my fault? I didn't dress for him.

Excellent distinction. I see that the use of examples makes your explanation clearer than mine.

And BE is wrong. Self-interest is not an obligation to others. This thinking is quite common nowdays, perhaps because of legal compensation for injuries or because of welfare compensating people for disabilities which may be partly their own doing.

No Self-interest is an obligation to yourself, look out for yourself.

It's a bit like Slut and Stud the mean the same thing except one is in regards to a woman the other in regards to a man.

Since the two words clearly have different affects (the latter far more positive than the former) it would probably be betterr to just use one word for both sexes.

I actually use neither, but I try to hear "slut" as a positive word when others use it. "Girl who has sex lots" == "Good thing for everyone else" ;)

Really? 'Cause I'd say that hating the idea that men and women are equals and should be treated as such inherently implies, if not hate, at least pretty significant disrespect to one gender or the other.

:rolleyes: that's all feminists do is whine about how everything is unfair. If anything, society is sexist against men. Think about many tv channels there are exclusively for women compared to men. Or the number of women-only gyms. Or how women sex offenders are treated easier than men. There are a number of other examples that show men get the short end of the stick everywhere you look.

Also... wait, I didn't know you were a girl. Wow.

Heh. I'm always amused by the fact that people on the internet assume penis-possession until one explicitly states otherwise. :p

You cut it out, too. An "If" doesn't put out a flame.


But that's my actual opinion.

No Self-interest is an obligation to yourself, look out for yourself.

PWAC asked you which of the two senses she defined, you meant that in.
Already, you have redefined the word to avoid the question.

Self-interest is not an obligation in the sense that PWAC defined it for you, specifically an obligation to others.

My keyboard has gone beserk, I have to bow out now. Sorry.

Heh. I'm always amused by the fact that people on the internet assume penis-possession until one explicitly states otherwise. :p

I think it's because we assume that women must have some better more fun exciting things to do.


... not that posting on internet forums isn't fun and exciting and a fine thing to do, of course....

PWAC asked you which of the two senses she defined, you meant that in.
Already, you have redefined the word to avoid the question.

Self-interest is not an obligation in the sense that PWAC defined it for you, specifically an obligation to others.

My keyboard has gone beserk, I have to bow out now. Sorry.

Well I said an obligation, that does include an obligation to yourself.

What question did I avoid?

Really? 'Cause I'd say that hating the idea that men and women are equals and should be treated as such inherently implies, if not hate, at least pretty significant disrespect to one gender or the other.

women-only gyms, women-only tv channels and the treatment of male v. female sex offenders are all a couple of many examples that show society is sexist to men if anything.

Since the two words clearly have different affects (the latter far more positive than the former) it would probably be betterr to just use one word for both sexes.

I actually use neither, but I try to hear "slut" as a positive word when others use it. "Girl who has sex lots" == "Good thing for everyone else" ;)

Yes but why has the one become something to celebrate and the other a more degrading word?

Is it not possible that there's a difference in mindset between a man who is attracted to women vs. one who is attracted to men? I'm by no means an expert, but if you listen to conversations of both sets concerning what they're attracted to, they tend to be very different. So, in the case of a rapist from either set, might not the psychological issues at work be somewhat different?

It's the same act though. If a man rapes a woman who he finds attractive, or if he rapes another man he finds attractive, how is whose fault it is any different? Is it either of the victims' fault for looking attractive? No, it is the rapist's, the one who chose, deliberately, to commit a crime.

(god damn it this conversation is preventing me from sleeping)

and here we see the problem inherent in the system. Define "should"

I think the problem inherent here was the poster, actually. -_-

No. Because many crime studies also indicate that, while there are many different reasons why rapists rape, none of those reasons has anything to do with finding the victim attractive. Also, many violent rapists -- the ones who inflict extra physical damage on their victims -- rape both men and women, but only find one sex attractive for relationships. How is this possible? Because as all crime experts have been saying for decades, rape is about power and domination, not sex.

This is true of rape committed by strangers, or serial rapists, but not date rape. The mentality behind them is so different they're nearly different things, but they are both assuredly rape. Just thought I'd throw that in.

I never said it was. But I think that if you know that by going down a certain street will see you get mugged even though it is wrong for them to do it why would you do it?

You might to it to teach some mugger a lesson. That could even be seen as heroic self-sacrifice (ie the opposite of "blame") in that by risking your own possessions or possibly apprehending/beating-up the mugger, you protect some other person who would be the victim when they had to walk past that alley.

No, it's simpler than that really. A bad thing happens. There is a quantity of blame for this bad thing, and you cannot put any of that blame on the victim without lessening the blame put on the perpetrator.

(Reboot fixed the crazy keyboard. Iz happy.)

Just a question before I get screamed at again. If I go to a extremely poor area where crime is very high and people are robbed all the time, should I still go their in my expensive suit flashing my Rolex? Or should I know that their will be a good chance that I will be mugged and perhaps takes some responsibility to try and prevent a wrong being committed against me and maybe not wear the Rolex?

I know that the muggers have done a wrong thing but shouldn't I still try to protect myself and prevent myself from being targeted?

Out of self interest, it's probably not a good idea. However, if you get mugged, it's still on the criminal who chose to rob you. It's no less wrong just because you weren't being sensible.

Yes but why has the one become something to celebrate and the other a more degrading word?

It's a good question and one very relevant to the thread.
I don't know.

It makes me very unhappy to think about. Both words make me angry, but "Stud" in a more jealous sort of way. So most guys like lots of sex, fine. So some guys get lots of sex, fine. That next step, that they should be given high social status in addition ... grrr.

This angry celibate guy is going for a walk. Now.

Oh, but there is, isn't there? Women have "penis envy". Men never have "vagina envy". Plenty of men make jokes about how a woman's crotch smells; I've yet to hear a woman say she refuses to perform oral sex because of the way a man's balls smell. Etc etc.


I've heard of women being disgusted by a man's crotch smelling bad. You haven't been in Santa Cruz long enough if you haven't.

Also, my sister doesn't believe in any such thing as "penis envy." She says what she has is "not-having-to-deal-with-periods envy." Anecdotal, yes, but amusing, hopefully.

It's the same act though. If a man rapes a woman who he finds attractive, or if he rapes another man he finds attractive, how is whose fault it is any different? Is it either of the victims' fault for looking attractive? No, it is the rapist's, the one who chose, deliberately, to commit a crime.

If you would read my prior posts on the subject, you would have seen that I have already stated at least twice what you just stated, and that I agree and you might have even seen why I agree.

Hating feminism =/=hating women.

If feminism = women are capable human beings just like men, then hating feminism does indeed = hating women.

Hence why it is such sever term, not that it is because being female is necessarily "bad", per se, but instead it is used as a way to demean a male into a lower, subordinate, position. Now, I'm not saying that it is used because males think that *females* are subordinate. That is not the case. However, less masculine *males* are considered subordinate. HUGE difference.).

I have to disagree with you there. I think the idea of being "less masculine" than another man equals being "more feminine" or "womanlike". I think there's a pretty good reason why the worst insults to use against a man are to call him a woman (or slurs pertaining to women) or to call him a fag. Both are seen as being subordinate, powerless--being taken from rather than taking--possibly why gay men, especially effeminate gay men, are so feared and hated. It's the ultimate emasculation to suggest that someone, for lack of a better term, gets fucked. The people with the power do the fucking--the people without it get fucked. That's why lesbians confuse people so much.

It's a bit like Slut and Stud the mean the same thing except one is in regards to a woman the other in regards to a man.

I'm waiting for the part where five pages later you say this was totally misunderstood. Yeah, "stud" and "slut" mean the same thing. How's it goin' there, slut? Nice ring to it.

women-only gyms, women-only tv channels and the treatment of male v. female sex offenders are all a couple of many examples that show society is sexist to men if anything.

Get some soap and you can have yourself a right nice bath in that river of tears.

Well, considering the two terms "bitch" and "bastard", it's not that hard to figure out really.

"Bastard" refers to an illigitimate child. The reason why it is still insulting today, although illegitimate children are not viewed in a poor light really, is that back when it *was* insulting to use, it was a big deal. Thus, it being an insult stayed, however over time the overall severity may have dropped due to changes in values.

"bitch", however, can be construed as far more demeaning, as it in turn refers to an animal, a female dog to be exact. I honeslty don't know the origin of the insult itself, however it's dehumanizing intent is likely why it is a much more severe term to use.

However, when call a male a "bitch", it is a *very* severe term to use, as it is in fact insulting masculinity(Now, before you go off on men are stupid for being macho and what not, I'm going to give a bit of background info. Females and males compete in totally different ways. We seem to be hard wired for this. Females compete to be "more similar", if you will, to each other. It appears to be how they *biologically* work. Do know why, not going to say on that, it's unimportant for the discussion at hand. Males, however, tend to try to one-up each other when competing. The most common, due to it being the most easily visible, is to be more "masculine" than the next person. Hence why it is such sever term, not that it is because being female is necessarily "bad", per se, but instead it is used as a way to demean a male into a lower, subordinate, position. Now, I'm not saying that it is used because males think that *females* are subordinate. That is not the case. However, less masculine *males* are considered subordinate. HUGE difference.).

One of my friends actually did a research paper on insults. I should get ahold of it, he did quite the amazing job on it.

The main point of my post earlier on the insults... was why is "Prick" or "Dick" or "Cock" less offensive than "****" or "Twat." They all refer to genitalia.

Snip bitches-deserve-it argument posts.

If you weren't making a spectacle of yourself as is, I'd be glad to make sure people laughed at the mere sight of your name in this forum for the pieces of barbarism you posted. I'd make sure you were remembered as the guy whose misogynist posts were torn apart by Heikoku.

I grant you my mercy in this regard once. Because I'm in a good mood.

I may not be thus merciful depending on your next post here, though, so weigh your options carefully.

I've heard of women being disgusted by a man's crotch smelling bad. You haven't been in Santa Cruz long enough if you haven't.

Heh, well I usually don't include Santa Cruz as an example of the "real world". Having met a great many people who are totally organic vegans who keep chickens as pets and smoke stacks of American Spirits while complaining about how refined sugar is bad for you, I can say Santa Cruz isn't quite like most of the world. ;)

Also, my sister doesn't believe in any such thing as "penis envy." She says what she has is "not-having-to-deal-with-periods envy." Anecdotal, yes, but amusing, hopefully.

Your sister is ace. Also "not being able to piss against the side of a wall" envy.

women-only gyms, women-only tv channels and the treatment of male v. female sex offenders are all a couple of many examples that show society is sexist to men if anything.

There are women-only TV channels? How does that work? Does the remote control scan the room for penises and then refuse to work if it finds one? Does the TV self-destruct in the presence of chest hair? Inquiring minds want to know!

And the treatment of female sex offenders is indeed often ridiculous and evidence of sexism, but I don't think it's so much anti-male as anti-everyone, since it generally seems to come from both the idiotic perception that men always want sex and thus don't mind being raped so much and the idiotic perception that women are helpless and fragile and couldn't really hurt anybody. Neither of those stereotypes is exactly charming.

The truth is that sexism sucks for everybody, male and female alike - which is why feminists like myself think that we should fight to end it, and that men and women are equals and should be treated accordingly. I still don't see any way that thinking men and women aren't equals or shouldn't be treated as such doesn't inherently involve disrespect towards whichever gender you believe should be treated as inferior.

Heh, well I usually don't include Santa Cruz as an example of the "real world". Having met a great many people who are totally organic vegans who keep chickens as pets and smoke stacks of American Spirits while complaining about how refined sugar is bad for you, I can say Santa Cruz isn't quite like most of the world. ;)
Yes, but healthy, clean vaginas smell fine. The cause of bad smell, just like as for male junk, is the either not healthy or not clean part, not the mere fact that it is one set of genitalia instead of another.


Your sister is ace. Also "not being able to piss against the side of a wall" envy.
Yes, she's pretty cool. And yeah, I think that's more the part that women envy, in addition to the not having periods.

I think it's because we assume that women must have some better more fun exciting things to do.


... not that posting on internet forums isn't fun and exciting and a fine thing to do, of course....

Hey, what can I say - I'm standing up for the rights of women everywhere to be geeks with pathetic social lives. Oh yeah! :p

The main point of my post earlier on the insults... was why is "Prick" or "Dick" or "Cock" less offensive than "****" or "Twat." They all refer to genitalia.

Goes back to my idea about the power differential between those who are fucked and those who do the fucking. By calling someone a "dick" or "prick", you are, while insulting them, also affirming that they are male -- powerful-- possessing the necessary parts to be the aggressor. It's the opposite with female parts, which are often viewed as a "receptacle" (passive, powerless) for a man to thrust himself into.

Contrast now the insult "cock" to the insult "cocksucker", which is the one word guaranteed to make an ump throw you out of a baseball game.

Hey, what can I say - I'm standing up for the rights of women everywhere to be geeks with pathetic social lives. Oh yeah! :p

Won't see me complaining. I actually wish my ladyfriend would spend more time on the internet so she would get my geeky internet jokes.

You might to it to teach some mugger a lesson. That could even be seen as heroic self-sacrifice (ie the opposite of "blame") in that by risking your own possessions or possibly apprehending/beating-up the mugger, you protect some other person who would be the victim when they had to walk past that alley.

:)

No, it's simpler than that really. A bad thing happens. There is a quantity of blame for this bad thing, and you cannot put any of that blame on the victim without lessening the blame put on the perpetrator.

(Reboot fixed the crazy keyboard. Iz happy.)

I never said I did.

Yes, but healthy, clean vaginas smell fine. The cause of bad smell, just like as for male junk, is the either not healthy or not clean part, not the mere fact that it is one set of genitalia instead of another.



Yes, she's pretty cool. And yeah, I think that's more the part that women envy, in addition to the not having periods.

Absolutely true, but the idea still persists--even dominates--that there is something inherently unclean or distasteful about vaginas.



I don't have periods 'cause my OB/GYN is a rockin' feminist, so I envy the "peeing where you like" part more. ;)

Won't see me complaining. I actually wish my ladyfriend would spend more time on the internet so she would get my geeky internet jokes.

im on ur internets gettin ur jokes. :p

If feminism = women are capable human beings just like men, then hating feminism does indeed = hating women.

Does feminism = women?

I'm waiting for the part where five pages later you say this was totally misunderstood. Yeah, "stud" and "slut" mean the same thing. How's it goin' there, slut? Nice ring to it.

You can have it right now. You did now then slut and stud is exactly the same except one is attributed to the male of the species and is a term of somewhat admiration the other attributed to the male of the species and is degrading.

And the treatment of female sex offenders is indeed often ridiculous and evidence of sexism, but I don't think it's so much anti-male as anti-everyone, since it generally seems to come from both the idiotic perception that men always want sex and thus don't mind being raped so much and the idiotic perception that women are helpless and fragile and couldn't really hurt anybody. Neither of those stereotypes is exactly charming.

This is something that as a feminist really upsets me, especially when it comes to statutory rape committed by an adult woman against a male who is a minor. It makes me ill that every time a story breaks about some 35 year old teacher sleeping with her 13 year old student, there are inevitably jokes all over about how lucky the boy is, how some men wished they'd had that "problem" at 13. It bothers me even more probably because I am a teacher, and as such it is my responsibility and duty to make school a safe space for my students and to protect them from harm. The idea of having so much power and using it to abuse those I should be protecting... it doesn't matter if I'm young and reasonably attractive, I'm an adult in charge of children and such conduct is revolting.

There are women-only TV channels? How does that work? Does the remote control scan the room for penises and then refuse to work if it finds one? Does the TV self-destruct in the presence of chest hair? Inquiring minds want to know!

:p

Come on Poli you know how it works. It is a channel that is designed to cater to women's taste. Doesnt stop me from watching it as it is the only one that shows Jeopardy

And the treatment of female sex offenders is indeed often ridiculous and evidence of sexism, but I don't think it's so much anti-male as anti-everyone, since it generally seems to come from both the idiotic perception that men always want sex and thus don't mind being raped so much and the idiotic perception that women are helpless and fragile and couldn't really hurt anybody. Neither of those stereotypes is exactly charming.

QFT

im on ur internets gettin ur jokes. :p

Exactly.

But that's my actual opinion.

And it is my actual opinion -- knowing you for a good-humoured being, and accepting that your posts generally address the post, not the poster -- that you're pulling my leg. Check your TGs.

But, for the benefit of newcomers, I'll wave this bit of paper around so they don't get the impression that "it's my opinion" is in every case an unassailable defence:

Trolling: Posts that are made with the aim of angering people ... <snip> it is still trolling even if you actually hold those beliefs. Intent is difficult to prove over the internet, so mods will work under their best assumptions.

This is something that as a feminist really upsets me, especially when it comes to statutory rape committed by an adult woman against a male who is a minor. It makes me ill that every time a story breaks about some 35 year old teacher sleeping with her 13 year old student, there are inevitably jokes all over about how lucky the boy is, how some men wished they'd had that "problem" at 13. It bothers me even more probably because I am a teacher, and as such it is my responsibility and duty to make school a safe space for my students and to protect them from harm. The idea of having so much power and using it to abuse those I should be protecting... it doesn't matter if I'm young and reasonably attractive, I'm an adult in charge of children and such conduct is revolting.

Agreed. The attitude that rape is somehow okay if it's committed by an attractive woman utterly disgusts me, and I feel deeply sorry for the kids involved, who will probably spend the rest of their lives hearing how "lucky" they were to have been raped. Ugh.

If you weren't making a spectacle of yourself as is, I'd be glad to make sure people laughed at the mere sight of your name in this forum for the pieces of barbarism you posted. I'd make sure you were remembered as the guy whose misogynist posts were torn apart by Heikoku.

I grant you my mercy in this regard once. Because I'm in a good mood.

I may not be thus merciful depending on your next post here, though, so weigh your options carefully.

I am sick and tired of you all painting me up as a villain and putting words in my mouth. And your just made the mistake of threatening to defame actively me further. You just blatantly threatened to defame another poster and you think you'll get away with it?

women-only tv channels

So... Cartoon Network means children are now segregating adults...

And ANIMAX, the Japanese animation cable channel, means otakus segregate everyone else...

Anything else?

I am sick and tired of you all painting me up as a villain and putting words in my mouth. And your just made the mistake of threatening to defame actively me further. You just blatantly threatened to defame another poster and you think you'll get away with it?

I never threatened to defame you. I threatened to win against you in an argument, so easily it'll make people LAUGH.

But feel free to try and twist my words, it's not the most absurd thing you said around here.

As for "painting you up as a villain", well, you painted yourself as someone who claims the victims are to blame for rapes. I don't think I could paint you more as a villain if I tried, and I'm GOOD.

Absolutely true, but the idea still persists--even dominates--that there is something inherently unclean or distasteful about vaginas.



I don't have periods 'cause my OB/GYN is a rockin' feminist, so I envy the "peeing where you like" part more. ;)

You don't have periods? Some kind of BC or something?

I actually read an article in the New Yorker a while ago about how periods are actually bad for you and increase cancer risk.

Does feminism = women?



You can have it right now. You did now then slut and stud is exactly the same except one is attributed to the male of the species and is a term of somewhat admiration the other attributed to the male of the species and is degrading.

I said if "feminism" = "women are capable human beings just like men". You have to read the whole phrase. I don't write in punctuation-less run on sentences, though I can see why you'd assume that.



Really, now. Is that a fact?

1. a dirty, slovenly woman.
2. an immoral or dissolute woman; prostitute.
[Origin: 1375–1425; late ME slutte; cf. dial. slut mud, Norw (dial.) slutr sleet, impure liquid]

–noun
1. a studhorse or stallion.
2. an establishment, as a farm, in which horses are kept for breeding.
3. a number of horses, usually for racing or hunting, bred or kept by one owner.
4. a male animal, as a bull or ram, kept for breeding.
5. a herd of animals kept for breeding.
6. Slang. a man, esp. one who is notably virile and sexually active.
[Origin: bef. 1000; 1920–25 for def. 6; ME; OE stōd; c. ON stōth; akin to stand]

This is something that as a feminist really upsets me, especially when it comes to statutory rape committed by an adult woman against a male who is a minor. It makes me ill that every time a story breaks about some 35 year old teacher sleeping with her 13 year old student, there are inevitably jokes all over about how lucky the boy is, how some men wished they'd had that "problem" at 13. It bothers me even more probably because I am a teacher, and as such it is my responsibility and duty to make school a safe space for my students and to protect them from harm. The idea of having so much power and using it to abuse those I should be protecting... it doesn't matter if I'm young and reasonably attractive, I'm an adult in charge of children and such conduct is revolting.

I am glad you also feel that way, it is a shame some of the judges don't when some get a lesser sentence at least in Australia, I always wondered why a female teacher with a 13 year old boy fell to his flirtations and masculinity was not entirely at fault but when a male teacher has sex with a 17 year old girl it was always his fault. (And it is before anyone picks me up for that despite the fact she was of legal age because she was under his care)

:p

Come on Poli you know how it works. It is a channel that is designed to cater to women's taste. Doesnt stop me from watching it as it is the only one that shows Jeopardy


Well, sure, I know there are channels designed to appeal to women. There are also channels designed to appeal to men, channels designed to appeal to black people, channels designed to appeal to Spanish-speaking people, channels designed to appeal to children, channels designed to appeal to elderly people, and so on and so forth. I'm just trying to figure out what these sexist, "women-only" channels Soviestan is so concerned about might be. :p

I am sick and tired of you all painting me up as a villain and putting words in my mouth. And your just made the mistake of threatening to defame actively me further. You just blatantly threatened to defame another poster and you think you'll get away with it?

Not defaming you. Simply quoting you.

You don't have periods? Some kind of BC or something?

I actually read an article in the New Yorker a while ago about how periods are actually bad for you and increase cancer risk.

Just your normal pill, but continuous. It is the accessory for the modern feminist on the go.

This is true. Modern women have MANY more periods over their lifetimes than previous generations did. We start earlier, we end later, and we have fewer children. We're "meant" to actually get pregnant and spend much of our time pregnant or nursing (most women don't get their periods while nursing).

Thanks to Seangoli for the original response on 'words', as well as Ryadn and Callisdrun for further responses as well as the discussion on the perceived cleanliness of vaginas as I believe it all rather ties in to the basic subject.

We place connotations on words in relation to the objects they're describing and, where the female is seen as lesser than the male, those objects are seen through a cultural context.

There's positive and negative connotations to femininity though, where they are insults, I find them far more aggressive. There's often a certain aggressiveness when it comes to either discussing the feminine or using words related to the feminine as insults. This can come from both sexes, I've heard as worse from females as from males.

It all ties in to perceptions of rape as well, down to the definitions and types and, as Ryadn has pointed out, certain rape can seem acceptable - e.g. female teacher to male pupil - whereas others are not.

When people complain about feminism, they often don't realise how deeply entrenched the problem is, so deep, they're blind to it themselves.

EDIT: Seangoli, on that, regardless of whether I agree with your post or not, I'd like to see the article if it's easy for you to find.

Merely a 2c of my thoughts rather than any summation.

Really, now. Is that a fact?



Slut (noun): Slang A promiscuous woman.

Source: Collins Dictionary

Of course you could take it up with a certain English professor at Macquarie University whom I unfortuatly forgotten who wrote up a paper on why slut and stud which had similar meanings one had become offensive the other had become something to which people would be congratulated for. If I remember her name or find the paper (it was a few years ago when I read it) I will tell you I am sure she will be thrilled to hear that she is wrong and who knows she might even give you her job as one of the many people who write the Macquarie Dictionary.

I gotta go to bed, it being 4 AM here. I'll be back in the morning, to entertain most of the people in this thread.

...and a grisly, grim "goodnight"...

I never threatened to defame you. I threatened to win against you in an argument, so easily it'll make people LAUGH.

But feel free to try and twist my words, it's not the most absurd thing you said around here.

As for "painting you up as a villain", well, you painted yourself as someone who claims the victims are to blame for rapes. I don't think I could paint you more as a villain if I tried, and I'm GOOD.

For smeg sake do I really have to translate for you all?

I never said OOOOHHH TEH WIMMINZ ARE ALWAYS TO BLAIM! The perpetrators are always at fault however whether or not the victim is partially responsible is purely circumstantial.

I don't ... i just hate the womanly parts of myself.
Eyelashes - plucked.
Nipples - shaved off with an angle sander.
Falsetto range - scraped away with a gardening utensil.
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2611530/2/istockphoto_2611530_garden_tools_in_basket.jpg
All orifices that could be violated have been stuffed with scented Crazy Putty.
Pesky chromosomes ... gene therapy and whatever else i can personally wring out with leeches, sunlight and magnifying glass.
Everything else that weren't so tangible has been summarily assigned to some other subservient personality. Mmm-hmmm.

Well, sure, I know there are channels designed to appeal to women. There are also channels designed to appeal to men, channels designed to appeal to black people, channels designed to appeal to Spanish-speaking people, channels designed to appeal to children, channels designed to appeal to elderly people, and so on and so forth. I'm just trying to figure out what these sexist, "women-only" channels Soviestan is so concerned about might be. :p

Yeah I know what you meant, and I too find it strange that you would use this argument as a way to show sexism in the world. A women only channel is basic business sense chuck on a few sitcoms, some women's talk fests like Oprah and the view, a few romantic movies and bang there we go, the only reason I didn't like the women's channel we have in Australia turning into a women's channel was because it dropped some of my favourites shows (such as monkey)that I used to watch, I do still watch a couple of shows on it. Oh and I am glad you didn't say well sports channels are for men, I once heard that argument.

26% of respondents thought that a woman was totally or partially responsible for being raped if she was wearing revealing clothing, and 30% thought she was totally or partially responsible if she was drunk.

I think this is actually a more difficult question than it seems. Of course, whether or not she is totally responsible is an easy "no," but partially is more difficult. It can cover anything from 1% responsible to 99% responsible. And just because someone might take reasonable precautions to protect themselves and didn't doesn't make the person who attacked them any less culpable. You can call my math bad, but whether the victim is 10% or 0% responsible, the assailant is 100% responsible. Just to be clear, I totally do not think that anyone raped should be blamed in any way.

That said, is there any kind of correlation between wearing revealing clothing and being raped? As in, are women who wear revealing clothing more likely to be raped than otherwise? I don't know. But if the answer is yes, then it seems that there's a reasonable precaution one might take to protect oneself a little bit. This isn't about people not being able to restrain themselves or the assailant's action - there's no question there. This is more about "What can I do to lessen my chances of being victimized?"

The best comparison I can think of is that in the state where I live, you get fined if you leave your keys in the ignition of the car (I believe) when you leave it. In an ideal world, you could leave your keys in the ignition and not have to worry about someone stealing your car. In the view of the state, however, this is irresponsible, and the owner of the car who left their keys in the ignition is partially responsible for it being stolen. Will they still apprehend the thief and find him guilty, given evidence? Naturally. Does the thief still bear 100% responsibility for his actions? Of course. But does the owner of the vehicle bear some responsibility as well, for being careless? Probably.

I hope that's all clear as mud. x.x

Edit: looks like this may've already been addressed to some degree later in this thread. Still though, I'm insisting that this isn't about excusing the perpetrator in any way, or about blaming the victim. It's about exercising good judgement. Which segues nicely into the next question.

The reason for the idea that the girl is partially responsible if she's drunk comes down, I think, to the issue of consent. Rape hinges on consent, yes? it needn't be violent to be legally considered rape. And "yes" isn't always consent, either. If the individual is underage, or (perhaps depending on the laws) drunk, "yes" might not be consent. This is why sensible guys, who take a note for self-protection to avoid being accused of rape, don't have sex with girls who are drunk. :P But let us suppose a guy is less than sensible, or perhaps also drunk, and doesn't realize that she cannot legally give consent due to her drunkenness. At that point, I do think she would need to bear some responsibility for putting herself in a situation in which her yes may not be yes. Because I think we should also be able to believe what people say. :P

To be fair, I think getting drunk is always irresponsible whether you're male or female, because it does significantly impair judgement. In one sense, it makes crimes committed while drunk less criminal, in a way, because the person is, quite literally, not in full possession of their faculties. On the other hand, this is precisely what makes drunkenness nearly criminal in itself in the sense of criminal negligence.

I guess, to sum up, I think responsibility for ones actions needs to fall on whoever commits said actions. It would be best if a girl could wear what she wanted and get drunk and feel completely safe, but in most cases that's not the environment we live in. She's not responsible for being raped if she is, but we as individuals are, to some degree, responsible for our own personal safety. As this applies to the judiciary - the victim's responsibility for their own protection ought to be completely irrelevant when judging the accused, simply because it's the assailant on trial rather than the victim. (far too often, the case seems reversed by the council for the defense) But the fact that a line of reasoning is misused does not invalidate the line of reasoning. (ref: straw-man argument) If the question of whether the individual has any responsibility for their own safety has a place, it is in educating people how to protect themselves. (don't go with strangers, keep an eye on your drink, don't go out in your underwear...) Not because doing these things makes you a literally irresistible target, but because it's safer to do them. Period. Finally ;)

The reason for the idea that the girl is partially responsible if she's drunk comes down, I think, to the issue of consent. Rape hinges on consent, yes? it needn't be violent to be legally considered rape. And "yes" isn't always consent, either. If the individual is underage, or (perhaps depending on the laws) drunk, "yes" might not be consent. This is why sensible guys, who take a note for self-protection to avoid being accused of rape, don't have sex with girls who are drunk. :P But let us suppose a guy is less than sensible, or perhaps also drunk, and doesn't realize that she cannot legally give consent due to her drunkenness. At that point, I do think she would need to bear some responsibility for putting herself in a situation in which her yes may not be yes. Because I think we should also be able to believe what people say. :P

To be fair, I think getting drunk is always irresponsible whether you're male or female, because it does significantly impair judgement. In one sense, it makes crimes committed while drunk less criminal, in a way, because the person is, quite literally, not in full possession of their faculties. On the other hand, this is precisely what makes drunkenness nearly criminal in itself in the sense of criminal negligence.

It would depend on where you stand saying yes to a person to have sex with you, but then the next morning thinking no you really didn't want to some will say it is rape others won't. Now the thing is if the guy was drunk he too could say that he was raped because although he said yes he was drunk and didn't know what he was doing, oh wait a minute men can't be raped because they always want sex and are always the one who instigated it even if he didn't say yes or no either. I think that the courts saying women are always the ones who don't want sex and must be the only ones who can be raped while drunk even if you had evidence of her saying yes still shows some of the poor mentality of the courts against women, I don't see why they are not strong enough and have the own free will to instigate sex.

This is something that as a feminist really upsets me, especially when it comes to statutory rape committed by an adult woman against a male who is a minor. It makes me ill that every time a story breaks about some 35 year old teacher sleeping with her 13 year old student, there are inevitably jokes all over about how lucky the boy is, how some men wished they'd had that "problem" at 13. It bothers me even more probably because I am a teacher, and as such it is my responsibility and duty to make school a safe space for my students and to protect them from harm. The idea of having so much power and using it to abuse those I should be protecting... it doesn't matter if I'm young and reasonably attractive, I'm an adult in charge of children and such conduct is revolting.

Oh yeah. Well said.

(It's kinda weird how many teachers post on here. It's like a faculty staff-room, but with the kids in here too! I mean this kindly.)

Now, I'm not a teacher. (I did a year as a teacher's aide but I couldn't hack it.) But I feel the same revulsion at that "the boy got lucky" interpretation. It makes me angry ... but anger and revulsion are not conducive to understanding. They're are, in fact, obstructions to clear understanding.

And it's the exact same issue that was stressing me before. Why are guys with lots of partners regarded as successful, lucky, "studs" ... while women with lots of partners are regarded as self-indulgent, weak, "sluts"?

I'm going to toss this out there while admitting that I really don't know, and my own peculiar sexuality does not equip me to know much about it. Here it is: when people have more personal experience of different roles (passive/active, arousing/assertive, romantic/carnal) with their sexual partners, this differing valuation of gender roles should fade away. Even one "walk on the other side" strikes a blow against this idea of "us" and "them" and quite changes the appreciation of what it takes to be the active partner (it's not easy) and what it takes to be the passive partner (it's not easy either.)

Attacking the passive is easier and safer than attacking the active ... but how can even the most traditional believer in "sex is something a man does to a woman" miss that both partners have important roles? If they really believe that, why aren't they sparing themselves the emotional effort and getting it on daily with a blow-up doll?

I don't hate women, they just need to remember that their place is the kitchen when it's not the bedroom or getting me a beer.

I think this is actually a more difficult question than it seems.
<snip for later>

That really is too long. Think of it as a matter of "timing." An essay is appropriate in a slow-moving, thoughtful thread, but it poses a conundrum for good posters who do the right thing and read everything posted. "Do I read this mini-essay, or read the twenty other posts to keep up?"

This from a chronic essayist and recognized crazy raver. Consider me self-critical as well. :)

Actual answer follows after dinner. I WILL be drunk. :D

Why is real hatred and loathing reserved for women?

/me does not compute

Do we...Does the society really treat women more poorly than men?

Here's a few points about gender treatment and equality:

1. Life expectancy - Which gender has longer life expectancy?

2. Female cancers vs male cancers - Which ones get plenty more attention? (esp. breast cancer vs prostate cancer)

3. Suicides - Which gender kicks their own bucket more?

4. Sexual harassment - Which gender dominates the victim statistics?

5. Custody cases - Which gender gets the custody of a child in majority of cases?

6. School performance - Which gender performs better at schools?

7. Crime - Which gender is more often the target of a crime?

8. Drafts/Conscription - Which gender is more often targeted by those procedures?


Overall, I'd have to say that in any modern society women are treated in average better than men from normal good manners - how many women open a door for a man? - to a distinct cultural bias against the well being of man, especially the grim suicide statistics are a proof of this. One could even argue that women are empowered over men through legal system bias looking through family law cases and sexual harassment statistics.

Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
2. FIGHT! (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=breast+cancer&word2=prostate+cancer)
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
4. no bias here (http://www.uoregon.edu/~counsel/harass.htm), a better source? (http://www.sexualharassmentlawfirms.com/Sexual-Harassment-statistics.cfm), lovely attitude (http://www.umich.edu/~sapac/info/stats-sh.html)
5. long url (http://search.cga.state.ct.us/dtsearch_lpa.asp?cmd=getdoc&DocId=11922&Index=I%3A%5Czindex%5C1998&HitCount=0&hits=&hc=0&req=&Item=133)
6. eg. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2001/09/10078/File-1
7. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0502.pdf
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription

While searching for sources I also came up with this (http://glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=1510) article which highlights one of the issues that IS handled differently because of genders of victim and perpetrator (not that I entirely disagree :p).

Just your normal pill, but continuous. It is the accessory for the modern feminist on the go.

This is true. Modern women have MANY more periods over their lifetimes than previous generations did. We start earlier, we end later, and we have fewer children. We're "meant" to actually get pregnant and spend much of our time pregnant or nursing (most women don't get their periods while nursing).

I knew of the whole nursing usually = no periods thing (due to taking the Female Physiology class... that was a little intimidating at first). I've heard of people taking the pill continuously before. I was wondering cause there are a couple other birth control methods that result in either very infrequent periods or none at all.

For smeg sake do I really have to translate for you all?

I never said OOOOHHH TEH WIMMINZ ARE ALWAYS TO BLAIM! The perpetrators are always at fault however whether or not the victim is partially responsible is purely circumstantial.

We know damn well what you said. However, as long as you shift some of the fault from the rapist to the victim, you are partially blaming her.

Humans are not insects who act solely on instinct. Instinct cannot force us to do such a thing as rape if we do not consciously choose to. Raping someone is a choice that a criminal makes. If you leave your wallet on the table, and I steal it, the blame is entirely on me. Nobody had a gun to my head forcing me to steal it, nobody else was controlling my body. Just me. The same is true with rape. I've been to an event where there were more than a hundred naked women, and a bunch of naked men as well. Guess what. No one was raped. We are thinking creatures, capable of weighing what our instinct tells us to do with what is socially acceptable, legal and right, and choosing to ignore the instinct to mate with anything that has a vagina if doing so is at odds with our view of morality and the law.

1. Life expectancy - Which gender has longer life expectancy?

Ah, but which gender suffers pregnancy more?

2. Female cancers vs male cancers - Which ones get plenty more attention? (esp. breast cancer vs prostate cancer)

As a society, we tend to prefer complete tits to total asses.

3. Suicides - Which gender kicks their own bucket more?

Females are more used to suffering?

4. Sexual harassment - Which gender dominates the victim statistics?

Entirely not sure what you're saying given the URL shows more women do.

5. Custody cases - Which gender gets the custody of a child in majority of cases?

Keeping the woman in the house where she belongs?

6. School performance - Which gender performs better at schools?

Yet which gender is better represented among CEOs?

7. Crime - Which gender is more often the target of a crime?

Men are violent, women can attest to that.

8. Drafts/Conscription - Which gender is more often targeted by those procedures?

See above.

Some of your points have little to do with culture, more with physiology, some are without any context.

However, it may be that you're simply showing up the problem with using statistics as a response to the quoted celebrity poll and etc., hence not all my points are serious, if any in fact.

*snip*
- how many women open a door for a man?
*snip*

If a woman ever opens a door for me, I will hit her with my walking stick. Ah don't need that patronizing crap!

Seriously, strong post. I'm not up to replying.

If a woman ever opens a door for me, I will hit her with my walking stick. Ah don't need that patronizing crap!

Seriously, strong post. I'm not up to replying.

I hold the door for the person behind me, male or female.

snip

Though these are good points, there is an imbalance in terms of power, in all its forms.

Women are paid less for the same work (see other thread), few women are elected into government/higher business positions, more women are raped and abused both domestically and outside, women going into work are expected to take maternity leave at some point and this is not expected of men.

There is still an expectation that the men will rule and the women will be subservient to varying degrees, but viewed with a protecting affection.

Why is real hatred and loathing reserved for women?

Honestly I'm not seeing that, heh and as for the most hated celebraties being woman, i'm gonna stick my neck out and suggest that the majority of people that answer these 'celebrity' polls are also women. So perhaps the question should have been, why do women hate other women?

Psff, anyone putting any blame, however minor, on the rape victim really annoys me. It's insulting to both women and men to be honest. :mad:

/me does not compute

Do we...Does the society really treat women more poorly than men?

Society? Yes. Your listed physiological arguments are irrelevant. They make as much sense as arguing nature treats men better because they get a third leg.


1. Life expectancy - Which gender has longer life expectancy?


Society has nothing to do with this.


2. Female cancers vs male cancers - Which ones get plenty more attention? (esp. breast cancer vs prostate cancer)


Neither.


3. Suicides - Which gender kicks their own bucket more?


Irrelevant. Society isn't doing anything here.


5. Custody cases - Which gender gets the custody of a child in majority of cases?

I counter with rape cases. How many guilty parties walk away on the defense of "she was asking for it by her job/dress/looks/etc"?


6. School performance - Which gender performs better at schools?


Depends on the school level.


7. Crime - Which gender is more often the target of a crime?


White and blue collar crimes? About equal.


8. Drafts/Conscription - Which gender is more often targeted by those procedures?

Which has more to do with archaic thinking by society than anything else. Also, let me ask a few things.

1: Which gender is more likely to have less rights and legal assurances.
2: Which gender is more likely to be paid less for the same job and qualifications than the other.
3: Which gender loses more court cases over arguments of "victim was asking for it"?

How is it that a stupid poll is somehow evidence that women are more hated?

That said, it's easy to hate Amy Winehouse, because it's quite obvious that she hates herself.

I don't hate women, but sometimes I feel like arguments like this hurt their cause: Take this statement about society 'hating' women because the conviction rates of rape cases has fallen: first of all, just because a case is brought before the court, especially for crimes like murder and rape, it doesn't mean that it will end in a conviction in favor of the accuser, that's not how the criminal justice system works. It does work, however, when it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed. In the last 40ish years, we've advanced a long way in terms of forensic science, which can be used to prove or disprove whether or not the accused has really committed a crime.

So forgive us if we don't automatically convict people of crimes like rape without investigating it first, and don't claim we hate women because we try to equally evaluate the evidence, and discover their isn't a case at all.

Though these are good points, there is an imbalance in terms of power, in all its forms.

Women are paid less for the same work (see other thread)
The stats I think you're referring to are dodgy, since it compared hourly rates of Full-time men to part-time women.


few women are elected into government/higher business positions,
It generally takes decades to achieve those top positions, so the lack of women their now at least partially reflects the level of sexism present in say the 1980s. It's a delayed effect. Also note higher numbers of women who leave work permanently to raise children.


more women are raped and abused both domestically and outside,
True, though we have no idea really of the actual numbers of male or female domestic abuse.

women going into work are expected to take maternity leave at some point and this is not expected of men.
Because men don't get pregnant?


I counter with rape cases. How many guilty parties walk away on the defense of "she was asking for it by her job/dress/looks/etc"?
How many?


Neither.
I believe Breast Cancer gets significantly more funding per capita than prostrate.


Keeping the woman in the house where she belongs?
There would only be a custody case if a woman was applying for custody.

I'm sure I read someone talking about the UK rape conviction rate being 5.7%, that is true but misleading since it is largely due to rapes not being reported, or a lack of evidence (with the unique complications with proving rape).

Rape cases that get to court have a conviction rate of about 50%, and considering the evidential test to take them to court is that the CPS considers it likely (as in 51% chance) to secure a conviction that's not a surprising figure.

Because Rupert Murdoch does, and despite not being actually Jewish, he does control the mainstream media of many English-speaking countries. And because proles are thick, they repeat what's said in the media by people smarter than themselves.

Ah, but which gender suffers pregnancy more?

As a society, we tend to prefer complete tits to total asses.

Females are more used to suffering?

Keeping the woman in the house where she belongs?

Men are violent, women can attest to that.

Interesting comments...and certainly not unbiased gender-wise. However, judging from your tone I suspect those aren't entirely serious comments. At least I sincerely hope so ;)

Entirely not sure what you're saying given the URL shows more women do.
Indeed, the URLs I linked show that vast majority of sexual harassment victims are women - Why is that so?

The disparity is in my opinion completely ridiculous almost up to a point where it seems that men cannot be sexually harassed by women.
Yet which gender is better represented among CEOs?
Perhaps its a matter of ambition or personal preference rather than discrimination?

I'm actually interested in do women want to lead as much as men do? As a kid, do girls dream of world domination as much as boys do? :D

However, it may be that you're simply showing up the problem with using statistics as a response to the quoted celebrity poll and etc., hence not all my points are serious, if any in fact.
I am simply providing a counterpoint: Women live longer and are favoured in issues that are typically considered feminine. Also, the society as a whole seems to care more about the welfare of women than that of men - cancer awareness/screenings, suicide statistics, violent crime in general seem to suggest this.

It should be noted that the statistic I linked in regards of violent crime were list of victims: If the reason is that women are less violent they should be the targets more often than men, yet this is not the case.

Society? Yes. Your listed physiological arguments are irrelevant. They make as much sense as arguing nature treats men better because they get a third leg.
But isn't part of campaign for women's equal rights also counterproductive to physical facts? Same wage for weaker vessel capable of doing less arduous work? :p
Society has nothing to do with this.
In my opinion, it does...and I'm not entirely alone with that viewpoint. More specifically the culture is to be blamed.

Irrelevant. Society isn't doing anything here.
You're partly right: The society isn't doing enough.

The status quo is accepted: Men kill themselves more often...and in my opinion it is because of the prevalent gender biased culture.

Ask yourself, why do women kill themselves less often and why men are more prone of taking their own lives? I think the reason is in accepted gender roles adjusted to western culture of feminism: Women are percieved to have more unwritten liberties and rights than men - From something as trivial as dress code to more serious issues like showing your feelings in public or parenthood. Note that I have no evidence for correlation, so it's purely my personal conjecture.

Coincidentally, if you looked at the statistics I linked...The countries with rates of suicide around or less than 2 men per 1 female are usually considered cultures where women have significantly less rights or where a male child is preferred, including China & India. OTOH every western nation with strong woman rights male suicides usually outnumber female suicides by a ratio of 4 to 1 or more...However, the absolute number of suicides of women remain relatively constant across the board.

I counter with rape cases. How many guilty parties walk away on the defense of "she was asking for it by her job/dress/looks/etc"?
In civilized countries? None?

I haven't encountered such a phenomena lately - possibly excluding singular incidents - perhaps you should enlighten us with links that show this is indeed a trend?

Also, what is your viewpoint on this issue: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=1510 - which I already linked to.
Depends on the school level.
Does it? Show me some evidence.

White and blue collar crimes? About equal.
Statistics, please.

Though, in impersonal crimes the victim's gender probably has nought to do with the probability of becoming a victim.
1: Which gender is more likely to have less rights and legal assurances.
2: Which gender is more likely to be paid less for the same job and qualifications than the other.
3: Which gender loses more court cases over arguments of "victim was asking for it"?
1. Proof?
2. Proof? Especially one which takes account the hourly wage NOT monthly salary and takes into account the differences in biologically present physical prowess.
3. Proof?

Overall I think female empowerement and equality is VERY GOOD for men too because after a generation or two even men are brave enough to be, well, less masculine and choose vegetables instead of fat filled sausages from the smörgåsbord.... And I do think we do need more women in power just to have more rights and equality for us men too.

Heck I even found a link supporting my POV: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3012308.stm ;)

How is Amy Winehouse a symbol of "empowerment for women"?

She seems like a symbol of self-destructive behavior to me.

...women going into work are expected to take maternity leave at some point and this is not expected of men.

Back here, this is not supposed to be an issue (while it unarguably is). More specifically fathers are allowed by the law - and otherwise encouraged - to have their own paid paternity leave when a child is born. The paternity leave is 18 days + 158 days shared with mother who also gets 105 days of maternity leave (with 80% salary). Both are combined with optional unpaid leave for mother and/or father until the child turns 3.

There is still an expectation that the men will rule and the women will be subservient to varying degrees, but viewed with a protecting affection.
The former might be a biological imperative though I would encourage more women to take postions of leadership.

The latter is more interesting in sense that while women are encouraged to become more...well...masculine the men aren't in general allowed to be more feminine and thus aren't afforded same kind of, well, care as women (bit poor choice of words but I hope the point gets through).

Ask yourself, why do women kill themselves less often and why men are more prone of taking their own lives? I think the reason is in accepted gender roles adjusted to western culture of feminism: Women are percieved to have more unwritten liberties and rights than men - From something as trivial as dress code to more serious issues like showing your feelings in public or parenthood.

That's the most absurd thing I have heard on the subject of gender relations, ever.

Coincidentally, if you looked at the statistics I linked...The countries with rates of suicide around or less than 2 men per 1 female are usually considered cultures where women have significantly less rights or where a male child is preferred, including China & India.

But does this correlation work in reverse, to support your claim of causation? Are there highly sexist countries with large gaps between male and female suicides?

Yes--take Nicaragua, for instance, which, by your own source, the male suicide rate is 11.0/100,000, and the female one is 3.7/100,000. Or Iran, where it's 0.3/100,000 compared to 0.1/100,000.

It shouldn't surprise us that countries where females are not only subordinated but actively unwanted have higher female suicide rates... but there is no reason to suspect that this proves much of anything with respect to Western feminism.

OTOH every western nation with strong woman rights male suicides usually outnumber female suicides by a ratio of 4 to 1 or more...

Sweden is generally ranked very high in terms of gender parity, yet its ratio is not even 3 to 1. The Netherlands nears 2 to 1.

However, the absolute number of suicides of women remain relatively constant across the board.

It doesn't rise as much as male suicides in the more extreme cases, true... but so what?

I feel that putting a political bumpersticker on my car will get another driver behind me angry or will result in my car getting hit or scratched or something. Yes, i have the perfect right to put any bumpersticker on my car that i want but i dont because i dont feel like dealing with the consequences. And thats just to protect my CAR. Id imagine if i was female, id go to even greater lengths to protect myself from unwanted attention.

That's the most absurd thing I have heard on the subject of gender relations, ever.
Like I said, just my opinion.

However, in case of, say, a divorce where the courts systematically decide that the physical custody of the child should go to the mother...which party is more prone to take their own life and for which reason?

Or to which gender bottled emotions are often attributed to?
But does this correlation work in reverse, to support your claim of causation? Are there highly sexist countries with large gaps between male and female suicides?

Yes--take Nicaragua, for instance, which, by your own source, the male suicide rate is 11.0/100,000, and the female one is 3.7/100,000.
But what is the status of female rights in Nicaragua?

Quick googling found eg this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_women_in_Nicaraguan_Revolution

Or Iran, where it's 0.3/100,000 compared to 0.1/100,000.
You gotta be joking using that statistic.

It shouldn't surprise us that countries where females are not only subordinated but actively unwanted have higher female suicide rates... but there is no reason to suspect that this proves much of anything with respect to Western feminism.

Sweden is generally ranked very high in terms of gender parity, yet its ratio is not even 3 to 1. The Netherlands nears 2 to 1.

True...and that might lead up to my second point:
Overall I think female empowerement and equality is VERY GOOD for men too because after a generation or two even men are brave enough to be, well, less masculine and choose vegetables instead of fat filled sausages from the smörgåsbord.... And I do think we do need more women in power just to have more rights and equality for us men too.

I'm quite willing to bet Sweden and Netherlands have long tradition of strong female rights which ends up improving the quality of life for men too.

But what is the status of female rights in Nicaragua?

Nicaragua is a very socially conservative, very Catholic country. Check their abortion legislation.

Revolutionaries are, well, revolutionaries.

You gotta be joking using that statistic.

I'm not suggesting that the numbers are accurate--they're certainly not--but that does not mean that they aren't proportional to the actual ratios.

Suicide statistics in general are unreliable.

I'm quite willing to bet Sweden and Netherlands have long tradition of strong female rights which ends up improving the quality of life for men too.

So your opinion is that feminism increases male suicides, except when it decreases them?

But isn't part of campaign for women's equal rights also counterproductive to physical facts? Same wage for weaker vessel capable of doing less arduous work? :p

If physical facts were the only issue, then people would be paid on the hour basis, or by the output. A lot of jobs don't have physical requirements beyond being healthy. Income disparity there is still quite clear though, between the genders.


In my opinion, it does...and I'm not entirely alone with that viewpoint. More specifically the culture is to be blamed.


You're going to have to explain how you put the two together.


You're partly right: The society isn't doing enough.

The status quo is accepted: Men kill themselves more often...and in my opinion it is because of the prevalent gender biased culture.

Japanese society is considerably gender biased, but you'll find that the culture is rather gender equal when it comes to honor recovery by suicide. Not that it's a good thing.


Ask yourself, why do women kill themselves less often and why men are more prone of taking their own lives?

Difference of perception, greater rationality, last minute doubt, who knows? The only real way to find out is to get into the heads of each and every suicidal person and take notes.

Although interesting to note, is that in the cases of violent rampages ending in suicides, I cannot find an instance of it being a woman as the perpetrator. Beyond household killings followed by suicides, the public murder/rampage suicides shown on the local media appear to be dominated by men.


In civilized countries? None?


How about this (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/03/news/state/4_04_082_2_07.txt)?


I haven't encountered such a phenomena lately - possibly excluding singular incidents - perhaps you should enlighten us with links that show this is indeed a trend?

Rather than showing it to be a trend, showing that it does happen should be enough no? After all, does that sort of defense work against any other crime?


Also, what is your viewpoint on this issue: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=1510 - which I already linked to.

A crime is a crime, regardless of gender. I see no reason why a lesser punishment should be given. The only time when the punishment is up in the air is when it's an oddball of a case. If statutory rape is sex with a minor, what happens when a minor rapes an adult?


Does it? Show me some evidence.


None beyond anecdotal unfortunately. So I'll have to drop this one.


Statistics, please.


Robberies, embezzlement, murder, across national boundaries, putting them altogether would average it out I imagine. But as you acknowledge, impersonal crimes have nothing to do with the victim's gender. That would be indicative of a comparatively equal average no?


1. Proof?
2. Proof? Especially one which takes account the hourly wage NOT monthly salary and takes into account the differences in biologically present physical prowess.
3. Proof?

And here I was thinking I was asking you the question.

1: Women's suffrage in America was not available for several centuries until after the nation was founded. In Saudi Arabia, there are a host of legal restrictions on what a woman can and can't do which has no equal for Saudi men. Tribal areas in rural Pakistan still practice honor killings, while gender equality laws are practically non-existent in a large majority of nations.

2: Will this (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/paygapgrows.htm) do?

3: I've shown one above, and you do acknowledge it happens in singular cases. Now it's your turn to show otherwise.

Only if you assume that I was trying to apply the "if she got raped she was dressed like a slut" argument. You should know me better than that Mur. All I said was that certain activities can increase the chances of you being a victim of certain crimes, and if you don't commit those activities, your chance of being a victim of that crime is less.

May not substantially less, maybe not noticably less, but less. Now does that mean that we should stop engaging in all behavior that carry risk of...something?

No, of course not, it merely means that like intelligent adults we should recognize when our actions increase the chances that "something bad" (whatever the something bad may be in that circumstance) will occur, and act as we see fit.

Does it mean we're at fault if someone does commit a crime upon us? No, of course not. I merely point out that certain actions increase the chance of certain crimes being committed against you, and as intelligent people, we should be aware of what those are.

And, perhaps just as importantly, as you point out, what they are not.
PEACE, PEACE, PEACE, PEACE!!! *pets and fawns over Neo*

I absolutely did not mean to give the impression that you were making that argument because I do know better. I am seriously sorry for not being clear on that.

I realize that where I went wrong was that I didn't make it clear that I was in the context of your post but talking about arguments like South Lizasauria's. Probaby, because I took it as granted and obvious that no one would think you would agree with him, so I just skipped over the making that clear part. I apologize.

So, to make myself clear (and I hope I do it better this time):

1) As far as I'm concerned, you said it all when you said this:
The reasonable prudent safeguards of the victim is not an element of rape, or of burglary, or of assault, or murder or theft. Thus what safeguards the victim took are irrelevant.

Thus the police dont care what safeguards you took, when it comes to catching the people who committed a crime against you. The job of the police is to catch criminals, and the fact that you may not have taken prudent safeguards doesn't make the act any less criminal.
On the issue of where our personal responsibility for ourselves butt up against the criminal's responsibiity for his actions, this is the entire legitimate argument, in my opinion. Nothing else needs to be added.

2) Also, as you agree above, the common reasonable precautions for personal safety that ALL people (not just women) would be well advised (though not obligated) to take in ALL situations (not just out partying) are precautions against ALL crime (not just rape). So the way references to such precautions are being used in the discussion of rape by people like SL is misleading, at best. That's my contention, anyway.

3) Because let's be honest with each other -- neither you nor I really believes that when SL and others who hold his views say that women bear responsibility for rape if they go out looking sexy, they really mean that women should exercise common sense precautions for personal safety. To show the lie of that claim about what they really meant, all we have to do is compare it to the rest of their arguments. When we do, we see that the bulk of their remarks are moralistic judgments against public expressions of female sexuality and impositions of their own rules of approved and acceptable behavior for women, even to the point of excusing the crime of rape if a woman does something they do not approve of but allowing her to be a victim if it happens while she's being what they think of as a "good girl." They only start claiming that they only meant that people in general should be aware of and take precautions against crime in general after they get their asses handed to them by appropriately indignant people who refuse to accept such disgusting nonsense.

4) So it is granted that both men and women would be wise to remain aware of the general dangers of society and take precautions that will not make them easy targets for any kind of crime. BUT it is my view that, when we -- reasonable people who know that obvious truth already -- get involved in splitting hairs over what will make this or that crime relatively more or less likely under which circumstances, all we are doing is getting lost in SL et al's smokescreen.

PEACE, PEACE, PEACE, PEACE!!! *pets and fawns over Neo*

Aww baby, you know I like that…

*ahem* getting back to the point, without quoting the bulk of it which essentially would just boil down to the “I agree with your agreement of my agreeing” dance that you and I seem to do here so often, as you said, the main point is to be aware of what constitutes risk, and how to reduce that risk. While it’s never right to blame a victim, pointing out “hey, you’re more likely to get stabbed/shot/robbed/raped” if you do that can be a useful tool. But at the end of the day it’s merely about assumption of risk.

Which is why I reject such silly arguments like “so should I wear my rolex in harlem?” and ask the question I asked…how do you define “should”. Which was defined as “an obligation”. Are you obligated to do so? Obligated by whom? Certainly wearing a nice watch in a bad neighborhood increases your risk of a crime being perpetrated against you, and if you don’t want said crime perpetrated against you, it’d be advisable not to do so. But “should” you not? Should implies an obligation, as states. There’s no obligation here. There’s common sense, there’s risk avoidance, there’s situational awareness, but if you choose to take that risk, that’s your choice. There’s nothing about it you “should” have to do.

Honestly I'm not seeing that, heh and as for the most hated celebraties being woman, i'm gonna stick my neck out and suggest that the majority of people that answer these 'celebrity' polls are also women. So perhaps the question should have been, why do women hate other women?

Not a bad question Peeps.

If you take a random group of people and nominate one as a leader, given they can sustain that leadership, you'll find people fight more among themselves than against the leader. Essentially they're jostling for position.

It can take a fair bit for them to realise that their true interests lie in cooperating and taking down the leader (or, under the best outcome, having a fair and equal cooperative). Often it takes a contender for leadership to unite them, and only if circumstances are so bad that they feel the current leadership needs to be overthrown.

I don't think that 'divide and conquer' is an overt method used, it's more a simple facet of a given society.

The fact remains that, if only subconsciously, one gender is perceived to have leadership qualities and the other doesn't.

Now, historically, it may be that men have naturally assumed a leadership role because of the locality of war for any given society - the % of people in the army has dropped consistently and the natural path of a male in joining the army has also dropped. Back in the day, in the UK at least, nearly any major town had a garrison. Nowadays, most of us don't even see a soldier. Might no longer means right. Therefore, we can better consider equal roles and, subsequently, rights.

One might go further and say that, perhaps, men have less empathy than women, it's easier for them both to resort to violence as well as to kill. Some might say that's merely a cultural construct. Either way, where we've historically been at hand-to-hand war, men have generally been those who participate and therefore are responsible for the ultimate safety of their own society.

Yet none of this means that inequality has to exist.

This is why I say that gender inequality goes deeper than most people think.

Aww baby, you know I like that…

*ahem* getting back to the point, without quoting the bulk of it which essentially would just boil down to the “I agree with your agreement of my agreeing” dance that you and I seem to do here so often, as you said, the main point is to be aware of what constitutes risk, and how to reduce that risk. While it’s never right to blame a victim, pointing out “hey, you’re more likely to get stabbed/shot/robbed/raped” if you do that can be a useful tool. But at the end of the day it’s merely about assumption of risk.

Which is why I reject such silly arguments like “so should I wear my rolex in harlem?” and ask the question I asked…how do you define “should”. Which was defined as “an obligation”. Are you obligated to do so? Obligated by whom? Certainly wearing a nice watch in a bad neighborhood increases your risk of a crime being perpetrated against you, and if you don’t want said crime perpetrated against you, it’d be advisable not to do so. But “should” you not? Should implies an obligation, as states. There’s no obligation here. There’s common sense, there’s risk avoidance, there’s situational awareness, but if you choose to take that risk, that’s your choice. There’s nothing about it you “should” have to do.
We may as well just operate on the assumption that, whatever the issue, you and I agree on it because I can't remember the last time we didn't. So regardless of occasional quibbles over wording or details, I feel comfortable in stating that our posts can always be taken as agreeing with each other.

The stats I think you're referring to are dodgy, since it compared hourly rates of Full-time men to part-time women.

The merits of which were discussed in the thread, but I also have looked up statistics showing that, even for the same hours worked in the same job, women make less per hour or week on average.

It generally takes decades to achieve those top positions, so the lack of women their now at least partially reflects the level of sexism present in say the 1980s. It's a delayed effect. Also note higher numbers of women who leave work permanently to raise children.

This is true, but I think the situation is still a put-off for young women. As far as I know, many more men get involved as the opportunities are greater, or, at least, more easily attained.

Because men don't get pregnant?

I was meaning that men aren't expected to take time off to care for children. Parenting is between two people, both should be expected to take time off work.

Back here, this is not supposed to be an issue (while it unarguably is). More specifically fathers are allowed by the law - and otherwise encouraged - to have their own paid paternity leave when a child is born. The paternity leave is 18 days + 158 days shared with mother who also gets 105 days of maternity leave (with 80% salary). Both are combined with optional unpaid leave for mother and/or father until the child turns 3.

I'm glad to hear it is considered. I think the best solution would be for the mother to take time off around the actual pregnancy (clearly she is unable to work during this time) and then, afterwards, the parents both do part-time to share the caring of the children.

The former might be a biological imperative though I would encourage more women to take postions of leadership.

The latter is more interesting in sense that while women are encouraged to become more...well...masculine the men aren't in general allowed to be more feminine and thus aren't afforded same kind of, well, care as women (bit poor choice of words but I hope the point gets through).

I understand what you mean, though I feel the words 'masculine' and 'feminine' carry unequal attributes. I don't think acting confidently and with strong will should be a masculine trait, I think it should be a trait of a healthy person. Similarly, caring about fashion and looking good shouldn't be tied with 'feminine', but with someone who wants to give a good impression to others. So, in this sense, the genders are slowly becoming more equal, which is good. Perhaps the changes we see concerning women are more obvious than with men, I'd hope that things are not becoming more equal by one moving towards the supposed attributes of the other as if it is superior.

I promised an answer. I am drunk, really very drunk and rather emotionally unstable to boot. But I haZ working keyboard!!!

I think this is actually a more difficult question than it seems. Of course, whether or not she is totally responsible is an easy "no," but partially is more difficult. It can cover anything from 1% responsible to 99% responsible. And just because someone might take reasonable precautions to protect themselves and didn't doesn't make the person who attacked them any less culpable. You can call my math bad, but whether the victim is 10% or 0% responsible, the assailant is 100% responsible. Just to be clear, I totally do not think that anyone raped should be blamed in any way.

Ah, you directly disagree with my previous assertion of "zero-sum" blame.
That's OK, because I'm not so sure about it myself.

A quick scenario: Person is walking down the street. Red hot rock falls out of sky, killing person. This is a bad thing. A really, really bad thing which someone is obliged to investigate, to find the causes of and hopefully prevent from happening again.


It was a meteorite. 0% blame to anyone.
It was a burning root vegetable, which a tenant of a flat above threw out the window to keep their kitchen from catching fire. Criminal negligence, say 50% blame to tenant.
It was a shotput, doused in tar and set alight, then deliberately aimed at the head of the victim, to pay them back for saying bad things about the shotputter's mother. 100% blame for death to shotputter.


Yeah, so I think I have proved myself wrong on the "bad thing happens, one quantum of Bad Thing to be ascribed in blame" wotsit.

Now, to your semantics. What is the difference between "being held responsible" and "being blamed" ...?

I have bolded the relevant phrases. You seem to be saying "yes responsible but no to being blamed."

I'm being nice about this. Ah'm a happy drunk tonight.

That said, is there any kind of correlation between wearing revealing clothing and being raped? As in, are women who wear revealing clothing more likely to be raped than otherwise?

Several women on this forum have given anecdotal evidence that there is no correlation between "going out dressed sexy" and being raped. In fact, it reads to me like a negative correlation, that being raped is MORE likely if a woman never draws attention to herself, stays home and tries to be pleasant and obliging to her male acquaintances.

There are statistics to support this. They hurt my head, frankly, since statistics describe the vast masses of humanity which my discerning tastes in friends keeps me away from. I don't hang with fuckwits, and I'd rather not admit that they even exist.

If you're a noob, I'd like to commend for close examination the posts of Smunkeeville. It seems she hangs out with fuckwits, and not surprisingly gets lots of grief from them. I quote from memory a translation of Lao Tzu: "The bad men are the material on which the good man works his craft. The good man is the teacher from which the bad man learns. For the artisan not to respect his materials goes against the Way, and for the student to not respect his teacher does also." (If I have mis-applied this quote, I welcome the correction of any Taoist or Chinese speaker.)

Fuck, I've already written a lumbering great essay and I'm barely a third through answering your post. I am a hypocrit! And proud of it!

I don't know. But if the answer is yes, then it seems that there's a reasonable precaution one might take to protect oneself a little bit. This isn't about people not being able to restrain themselves or the assailant's action - there's no question there. This is more about "What can I do to lessen my chances of being victimized?"

Yes, yes, yes. See my earlier post about the assumption of enlightened self-interest.

This is a personal thing. The victim's friends should talk to them about their self interest. But friends only, those who have their trust, because no professional, no judge, and no internet stranger should advise a person from that perspective, their own interests. Only a friend, one who will stand by the recipient of the advice if they follow it and mess it up. Only within that "our interests are one" bubble of trust. Only with love.

I speak rather intimately to those I trust on this forum. But this is nothing like the trust I have for those I apprehend the body of, can reliably share space with. For these, I would give my life for or take the life of. Without bodies, we may "live" as memories or as concepts, but we do not live a life, any more. My friends have my life in their hands, and I theirs. I am harsh, but I never hate a friend, and cannot hate any who was a friend. I am heroin. I am firestorm. I am a lost soul, licking the beach and spitting it out, endlessly, seeking the grain of sand which is unlike any other. In short, I went mad thirty years ago and won't come back until I find what I am looking for but won't recognize until I find it. I am well past caring if I ever come back

The best comparison I can think of is that in the state where I live, you get fined if you leave your keys in the ignition of the car (I believe) when you leave it. In an ideal world, you could leave your keys in the ignition and not have to worry about someone stealing your car. In the view of the state, however, this is irresponsible, and the owner of the car who left their keys in the ignition is partially responsible for it being stolen. Will they still apprehend the thief and find him guilty, given evidence? Naturally. Does the thief still bear 100% responsibility for his actions? Of course. But does the owner of the vehicle bear some responsibility as well, for being careless? Probably.

Further example: firearms. To not secure a firearm against irresponsible use (eg by a minor who may have access to said firearm) is irresponsible. A gun, like a car, can empower an indiviidual beyond their moral competentence. The owner has a responsibility for this power ... must take responsibility for the acts of those their inadequate stewardship of the empowering item allows that power.

Yes, I contradict myself. This special case, of irresponsible use of tools, of enabling a crime, is a matter I do not yet have a proper answer for.

I hope that's all clear as mud. x.x

Mud is as clear as interstellar vacuum ... to a platypus. Different senses apprehend a different world ... to me, it is clear.

Edit: looks like this may've already been addressed to some degree later in this thread. Still though, I'm insisting that this isn't about excusing the perpetrator in any way, or about blaming the victim. It's about exercising good judgement. Which segues nicely into the next question.

Good. Get on with it already.

The reason for the idea that the girl is partially responsible if she's drunk comes down, I think, to the issue of consent. Rape hinges on consent, yes? it needn't be violent to be legally considered rape. And "yes" isn't always consent, either. If the individual is underage, or (perhaps depending on the laws) drunk, "yes" might not be consent. This is why sensible guys, who take a note for self-protection to avoid being accused of rape, don't have sex with girls who are drunk. :P

It's not, really. Sensible guys don't have sex with a girl who may regret it later ... drunk or not, the real issue is their capacity to consent. This isn't a matter of a blood-alcohol measurement, more a "walk this line without falling over" test. Some girls are too dumb to fuck, and should be left to those guys too dumb to realize that.

No, I am quite serious. Two dumb people who broke a law together will quite rightly be treated more leniantly by a jury than a smart person who broke a law in having sex with a dumb person.

And, lest I be accused of elitism, I would be judged very harshly by a law or a mod guideline, being a smart person who voluntarily impairs her judgement by getting riotously drunk. I'm well within the bounds of responsible behaviour ... so far as I can judge. ;)

Fine lines. I love 'em!

But let us suppose a guy is less than sensible, or perhaps also drunk, and doesn't realize that she cannot legally give consent due to her drunkenness. At that point, I do think she would need to bear some responsibility for putting herself in a situation in which her yes may not be yes. Because I think we should also be able to believe what people say. :P

Ay, it's judgement. Hence, we have judges.
Juries are a different matter, and I think perhaps an unjust one. They are a necessary check on the power of judges, but perhaps the option should be decided by a coin toss, not by the preference of the defendant.

To be fair, I think getting drunk is always irresponsible whether you're male or female, because it does significantly impair judgement. In one sense, it makes crimes committed while drunk less criminal, in a way, because the person is, quite literally, not in full possession of their faculties. On the other hand, this is precisely what makes drunkenness nearly criminal in itself in the sense of criminal negligence.

So ignore my whole post. I am very very drunk, though you may not believe it by my diction. I am very drunk, and physically tired to boot (long day, not in the best of health).

Yet I trust my judgement in replying to you. I am accustomed to being drunk, and make allowances. I double-check, I read my own words as though they were written by another. I am content that I am committing no crime. Would you disagree?

(Well, perhaps the social crime of "banging on" but the forum allows for that. Stop reading, scroll the page.)

I guess, to sum up, I think responsibility for ones actions needs to fall on whoever commits said actions. It would be best if a girl could wear what she wanted and get drunk and feel completely safe, but in most cases that's not the environment we live in.

When we speak of "rights" and of what is right, we speak of a plausible ideal world. Of what should be. We speak as equal partners in our ideal world, and it's not a world of billions ... it's not the real world.

Nor should it be! The real world is boring. It is irrational. It has gross and uncorrected injustice. Fuck the real world! This is NSG!

No, we should not make a dream-world, we must stay within the range of the plausible. How should it be? As we can convince the forum! I have faith in our little forum, there are plenty of cynics, plenty of doubters, and most of all plenty of posters with their feet mired in the mud of reality, whose heads cannot move far from the practicable. We need them, I need them, they hold me to standards of reason. I have an extensible neck, like Alice, yet I have learnt not to speak from the clouds.

Your mileage may vary.

She's not responsible for being raped if she is, but we as individuals are, to some degree, responsible for our own personal safety.

Yes. Apply the standard printed on medicine which might have impairing side-effects. "Do not drive or operate heavy machinery." Make allowances in decisions for possible impairment of your own judgement. Self-limit your capacity to do harm by judgement you know to be impaired.

As this applies to the judiciary - the victim's responsibility for their own protection ought to be completely irrelevant when judging the accused, simply because it's the assailant on trial rather than the victim. (far too often, the case seems reversed by the council for the defense) But the fact that a line of reasoning is misused does not invalidate the line of reasoning. (ref: straw-man argument)

Sure, noob. Make a valid straw-man argument, and I will be the first to applaude.

If the question of whether the individual has any responsibility for their own safety has a place, it is in educating people how to protect themselves. (don't go with strangers, keep an eye on your drink, don't go out in your underwear...) Not because doing these things makes you a literally irresistible target, but because it's safer to do them. Period. Finally ;)

Welcome to NSG. Your argument was weakened, not strengthened, by the length you indulged yourself in. Why? Quite simply: almost no-one did read it.

If I were sober, I would have disagreed more. I would have been more harsh and more critical. But I restrained myself, knowing the limitations which intoxication puts on my judgement.

I commend your post as sincere and thoughtful. To make oneself clear is a virtue, which outweighs the sin of wasted words. To be succinct (brief but unambiguous) is an art I have not myself mastered, despite two years of practice here.

For smeg sake do I really have to translate for you all?

I never said OOOOHHH TEH WIMMINZ ARE ALWAYS TO BLAIM! The perpetrators are always at fault however whether or not the victim is partially responsible is purely circumstantial.

I told you I'd be back to entertain the people here.

At your expense.

Since you seem to have made no attempts to recant yourself from what you said - which boils down to "part of the blame is on the woman if she dresses in a way men find enticing" - I'll play with you a bit.

You try to make a case that men are creatures of instinct, that can't control themselves. In fact, that's at the very core of your attempted argument.

So, let's examine that premise - a premise you use out of a need to have SOMETHING to blame women with, or, in short, as an excuse - more closely, shall we?

Your appeal to instinct, argumentum ad instinctum if you will, isn't supported by the fact that we have several technologies - bungee jumping, skydiving, airplanes - and developed several concepts - abstinence, castration, celibacy, vegetarianism - that run counter to the "instincts" you claim that govern us. If instincts ruled us that much, would we have these things? If so, why?

Secondly, you don't seem to be using argumentum ad instinctum to make the case that if a handyman is killed for entering someone's house - their territory, which they didn't delimitate with urine but still - that person is just giving in to their territorial instincts. You don't seem to be using argumentum ad instinctum to make the case that we all should live in a natural society, in which money is not a concept, like monkeys do. You don't seem to want to use argumentum ad instinctum to make any case other than "it's partially their fault if someone rapes them", which has ramifications such as "let's reduce the rapist's jail time, or allow him parole, depending on how his defense attorney makes the case that she was wearing/behaving like a slut".

You use argumentum ad instinctum to make a case of a notion you already hold - and it's not a reasonable notion by any measure, it's just the "that bitch deserved it" notion. People like you is why some defense attorneys in rape cases try to smear the victim to get the jury to release the rapist so the rapist can strike again and again.

You use it to make no other equally absurd case because it doesn't fit your worldview. And the fact that you use it, the fact that people like you use it, propagate this lie just so they can have an excuse to blame the victim, results in more rapists being left out.

You used an argument that doesn't hold water as the only basis to defend an assertion that is not true while neglecting to own up to any other things the argument you used would result in.

You further tried to use that argument to defend a view which is not only wrong, but dangerous, disingenuous and rape-inducing as well.

And I decided to - along with just about everyone here - show you and the spectators why you're so utterly, absolutely and completely WRONG.

Next time I offer you my mercy in arguments, you'd do well to take it.

You're going to have to explain how you put the two together.
I would attribute part of the shorter lifespan to gender roles because...

1) http://www.webmd.com/depression/depression-men
2) Women are more prone to seek help when in need while when men are taught to see it as unnecessary complaining - as a feminine trait.
3) The former applies also to medical issues, a pain here, a pain there is no reason to visit a doctor.
4) Taking care of yourself - namely healthy diet & lifestyle - is seen as non-masculine.

I personally feel that these are a changing because the more power & equality women have the more men have equality as well.

Japanese society is considerably gender biased, but you'll find that the culture is rather gender equal when it comes to honor recovery by suicide. Not that it's a good thing.
Are you suggesting women fail less in Japanese society instead of men taking failure more, well, seriously - too often ending up in suicide?

Would the latter - ultimate shame from failure - happen if it would not be ingrained in the culture?
Difference of perception, greater rationality, last minute doubt, who knows? The only real way to find out is to get into the heads of each and every suicidal person and take notes.

Although interesting to note, is that in the cases of violent rampages ending in suicides, I cannot find an instance of it being a woman as the perpetrator. Beyond household killings followed by suicides, the public murder/rampage suicides shown on the local media appear to be dominated by men.

I'd say dominated but not exclusive to...though I could be mistaken.

My perception of that would be that men are more prone to keeping feelings inside and thus suffer more from the last straw effect. I also think men are more prone to giving up when facing failure and loss of 'honor'.

How about this (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/03/news/state/4_04_082_2_07.txt)?
Isolated case - Furthermore the perpetrator was part of law enforcement which would naturally carry a bias regardless of gender.

Besides there's a reason to suspect there is no case for rape:
Park then unbuttoned his pants and placed his penis in her hand, Kamiabipour alleged. He also grabbed the woman's breast and used a finger to sexually penetrate her, the prosecutor said.

Excuse me? Did what? How can you do that without both parties being consensual?
Rather than showing it to be a trend, showing that it does happen should be enough no? After all, does that sort of defense work against any other crime?
It has to be consistent trend instead of few isolated cases in order to be considered systematic oppression, trampling of rights.

A single disputable case doesn't make it 'more likely'.
A crime is a crime, regardless of gender. I see no reason why a lesser punishment should be given. The only time when the punishment is up in the air is when it's an oddball of a case.
Like woman sexually abusing a man, eh?

If statutory rape is sex with a minor, what happens when a minor rapes an adult?
Don't know. Would both parties be guilty?

None beyond anecdotal unfortunately. So I'll have to drop this one.
Well, back here on university level in 2007 female graduates outnumbered men by 1.75 women to a man (source (http://www.stat.fi/til/yop/2007/yop_2007_2008-06-19_tie_002.html) in Finnish).

Coincidentally - Men composed 75% of technical graduates while women composed 82% of the rest.

That would be indicative of a comparatively equal average no?
Might be, but that doesn't remove the disparity on violent crime either.

And here I was thinking I was asking you the question.
You know as well as I do that you were promoting a viewpoint rather than actually asking the questions :p
1: Women's suffrage in America was not available for several centuries until after the nation was founded. In Saudi Arabia, there are a host of legal restrictions on what a woman can and can't do which has no equal for Saudi men. Tribal areas in rural Pakistan still practice honor killings, while gender equality laws are practically non-existent in a large majority of nations.
I agree that 3rd world countries and countries like China have a lot to do in order to achieve standards of western world but same goes for rest of the people too.

As for Saudi Arabia and muslim countries....I feel the question is that are women happy under those circumstances rather than absolute amount of rights from western perspective. Though, I fully understand and even support to an extent the outright condemnation - especially in regards of honor killings, genital mutilation and equality in front of law - of the status quo in that region of the world.

2: Will this (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/paygapgrows.htm) do?
I'm uncertain, I'm unfamiliar with US policies regarding for example pregnancy - eg. does maternity leave unpaid? - and whether that has this qualifier you mentioned present:
...for the same job and qualifications..

Especially as the article itself mentions the bolded parts:
To address the continuing disparities in pay between women and men, we need to raise the minimum wage, improve enforcement of Equal Employment Opportunity Laws, help women succeed in higher-paying, traditionally male occupations, and create more flexible, family friendly workplace polices."

Which would imply that minimum wage jobs are dominated by women and that well paid jobs are dominated by men - Or in other words that the genders are doing different job in the first place which is not the same as getting paid less for the same job.

3: I've shown one above, and you do acknowledge it happens in singular cases. Now it's your turn to show otherwise.

You have shown no such thing and remember that mistakes happen in all cases, not just in those with women as victims.

On the other hand last I checked 'she/he was asking for it' is not a viable defence anywhere in civilized world - Although 'he was asking for it' usually applies to a case which doesn't go to court.... :p

I didn't know Amy Winehouse was British…

Unfortunately so... you can have her if you like.

I told you I'd be back to entertain the people here.

At your expense.
*snip*

tl; dnr

:D

Unfortunately so... you can have her if you like.

If she is pretty and can't act, we'll have her!

In exchange for Kylie Minogue, mind.

tl; dnr

:D

http://i.dipity.com/uploads/events/564868b8b0c790b63922f510110dfd19.png

The merits of which were discussed in the thread, but I also have looked up statistics showing that, even for the same hours worked in the same job, women make less per hour or week on average.
Link? Because the closest I've ever seen is figures that even though they were in the same job, didn't take into account time spent outside the business etc, which was higher in women (maternity leave etc) and hence was another variable.



This is true, but I think the situation is still a put-off for young women. As far as I know, many more men get involved as the opportunities are greater, or, at least, more easily attained.

Women now run 700,000 companies in Britain. Women own 48% of the nation's personal wealth - predicted to rise to 60% by 2025.

There are many more young female millionaires in Britain than men - 47,000 aged between 18 and 44 as opposed to just 38,000 men.
BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/06/the_gender_gap.html)





I was meaning that men aren't expected to take time off to care for children. Parenting is between two people, both should be expected to take time off work.
Maternity leave also covers the time in the latter stages (and immediately after) of pregnancy when women are more or less unable to work, which is one reason for the discrepancy. What are you saying, that women are being discriminated against by being able to take longer paid holidays?



I'm glad to hear it is considered. I think the best solution would be for the mother to take time off around the actual pregnancy (clearly she is unable to work during this time) and then, afterwards, the parents both do part-time to share the caring of the children.

I think couples should be left to decide, but you shouldn't force companies to employ people part-time against their will.

*snip image Oh Rly?*

No, not really. I did read it, but only after snapping out the joke.

Your post was worth the read. You are fine poster, but your prancing triumphalism very nearly negates it.

As my bitter self-deprecation almost negates any value in my own posts.

Marry me? ;)

I would attribute part of the shorter lifespan to gender roles because...

1) http://www.webmd.com/depression/depression-men


I really don't know about depression. I've most commonly attributed it to psychological problems. And your article notes it happens to men and women anyway.


2) Women are more prone to seek help when in need while when men are taught to see it as unnecessary complaining - as a feminine trait.
3) The former applies also to medical issues, a pain here, a pain there is no reason to visit a doctor.

Well that's just silly. In either case, with all the marketing for 101 treatments for all sorts of ailments, I can hardly see that sort of social conditioning having much traction in today's world.


4) Taking care of yourself - namely healthy diet & lifestyle - is seen as non-masculine.

I'd have to say that this is probably only the case in well... I can't think of any country like that. I've not seen a culture that spurned health and fitness.


Are you suggesting women fail less in Japanese society instead of men taking failure more, well, seriously - too often ending up in suicide?

No, I'm saying that suicide is a lot worse in Japanese society than most other places, for men and women both. The entire "honor preservation through suicide" aspect more or less fell equally among the sexes. Although the conditions differed, they were often interlinked. At least in the feudal era. Nowadays?


Would the latter - ultimate shame from failure - happen if it would not be ingrained in the culture?

Shame is a cultural aspect. You can't exactly separate the two.


I'd say dominated but not exclusive to...though I could be mistaken.

My perception of that would be that men are more prone to keeping feelings inside and thus suffer more from the last straw effect. I also think men are more prone to giving up when facing failure and loss of 'honor'.


Maybe, maybe not. Could be something as simple as men being more prone to outward displays of aggression. Who knows?


Isolated case - Furthermore the perpetrator was part of law enforcement which would naturally carry a bias regardless of gender.

Besides there's a reason to suspect there is no case for rape:
Park then unbuttoned his pants and placed his penis in her hand, Kamiabipour alleged. He also grabbed the woman's breast and used a finger to sexually penetrate her, the prosecutor said.

Excuse me? Did what? How can you do that without both parties being consensual?

The article clearly states a number of legitimate fears the victim had regarding the power the officer had over her. It may not be putting a gun to your head, but blackmail doesn't mean willing consent and is still coercion.


It has to be consistent trend instead of few isolated cases in order to be considered systematic oppression, trampling of rights.


Wait, wait, wait. I never said it was systematic. But I imply it was more likely to happen.


A single disputable case doesn't make it 'more likely'.


It makes it 'more likely' from 'not at all'.


Like woman sexually abusing a man, eh?


There was a case of that in Sweden I think. The woman went to jail for rape. I thought it was fair, assuming the facts at the time were true.


Don't know. Would both parties be guilty?


I haven't the slightest. You would need to talk to a lawyer for that.


Might be, but that doesn't remove the disparity on violent crime either.


A disparity I imagine neither of us will furnish statistics on, given the unlikelihood that such studies will be made.


I agree that 3rd world countries and countries like China have a lot to do in order to achieve standards of western world but same goes for rest of the people too.

So you agree that women are generally behind when it comes to legal rights and protections when compared to men.


Especially as the article itself mentions the bolded parts:
To address the continuing disparities in pay between women and men, we need to raise the minimum wage, improve enforcement of Equal Employment Opportunity Laws, help women succeed in higher-paying, traditionally male occupations, and create more flexible, family friendly workplace polices."

Which would imply that minimum wage jobs are dominated by women and that well paid jobs are dominated by men - Or in other words that the genders are doing different job in the first place which is not the same as getting paid less for the same job.

Oh come on now. You cannot seriously be making a logical leap that a scarcity of women in higher paying jobs means an automatic greater presence in lower paying jobs over men. It means exactly what it says, that there are few women in higher paying jobs. It says nothing about their presence in lower paying jobs.


You have shown no such thing and remember that mistakes happen in all cases, not just in those with women as victims.

I did. You just didn't want to acknowledge that it was. :p


On the other hand last I checked 'she/he was asking for it' is not a viable defence anywhere in civilized world - Although 'he was asking for it' usually applies to a case which doesn't go to court.... :p

Where have you been getting your news? There have been any number of sexual assault cases where the defendant argues against the victim by pointing out the manner of dress, behavior and even occupation, all just to somehow imply that the person consented simply by being, ergo "she was asking for it".

No, not really. I did read it, but only after snapping out the joke.

Your post was worth the read. You are fine poster, but your prancing triumphalism very nearly negates it.

As my bitter self-deprecation almost negates any value in my own posts.

Marry me? ;)

Oh, it's not triumphalism. I essentially want people to picture a martial artist when reading my posts. ;)

It's an... anime disposition, if you will.

And depends, what's your gender again?

I don't hate women, but sometimes I feel like arguments like this hurt their cause: Take this statement about society 'hating' women because the conviction rates of rape cases has fallen: first of all, just because a case is brought before the court, especially for crimes like murder and rape, it doesn't mean that it will end in a conviction in favor of the accuser, that's not how the criminal justice system works. It does work, however, when it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed. In the last 40ish years, we've advanced a long way in terms of forensic science, which can be used to prove or disprove whether or not the accused has really committed a crime.

So forgive us if we don't automatically convict people of crimes like rape without investigating it first, and don't claim we hate women because we try to equally evaluate the evidence, and discover their isn't a case at all.

No one is suggesting that accused rapists should be "automatically convicted." The facts, however, are that the conviction rates for rape cases are much, much, much, MUCH lower than for other crimes. A great many women never report their rapes specifically because they are convinced that the rapist could not possibly be convicted anyway. That's a problem, don't you think?

Where have you been getting your news? There have been any number of sexual assault cases where the defendant argues against the victim by pointing out the manner of dress, behavior and even occupation, all just to somehow imply that the person consented simply by being, ergo "she was asking for it".

Or perhaps trying to make it seem more likely that she was asking for it as in 'consenting'. A woman who goes out dressed in a burkha and never talks to men (to exaggerate for point of argument) is less likely to have casual sex than someone who goes out in miniskirts and flirts with men.

And I agree with with G3N13, healthy diet and lifestyle in particular are seen as more feminine options, though often connected with dieting. Salads are not seen as 'manly', for example.



No one is suggesting that accused rapists should be "automatically convicted." The facts, however, are that the conviction rates for rape cases are much, much, much, MUCH lower than for other crimes. A great many women never report their rapes specifically because they are convinced that the rapist could not possibly be convicted anyway. That's a problem, don't you think?
Not always, in the UK they're not that far away from other serious crimes (within 5% off the top of my head)Guardian stats (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/may/28/ukcrime.immigrationpolicy). Plus the unique difficulty in proving rape and the effects it has on the victim in terms of willingness to come forward (and the high likelihood the victim has a close relationship with the accused) also play a factor.

Link? Because the closest I've ever seen is figures that even though they were in the same job, didn't take into account time spent outside the business etc, which was higher in women (maternity leave etc) and hence was another variable.

This (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=167) shows averaged hourly pay of full-time men and women as a percentage gap.

This spreadsheet (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7938.xls) shows rather more detailed numbers regarding hourly pay. Latest data is from first quarter of 2006 (not sure why only up to this) showing full-time hourly average pay as: 12.62 male, 10.62 female. For part-time this is reversed: 7.90 male, 8.26 female.

I do agree (and so does the first link) that measuring this is complicated by varying work patterns and time spent with a business, but think that there may still be inequalities present. Also, looking at number of employees, more males work full-time (11.5 million vs. 7.1m), but in part-time the opposite (1.25m vs. 5.1m); these correspond to the pay gaps present.

Maternity leave also covers the time in the latter stages (and immediately after) of pregnancy when women are more or less unable to work, which is one reason for the discrepancy. What are you saying, that women are being discriminated against by being able to take longer paid holidays?

No, I didn't suggest that. It's more the unpaid leave outside of this that is still required to raise the children but is, I believe, most normally taken by the mother as this is still the expectation. If the partner earns more, then fair enough, but considering comparative salaries, surely it is most equal for both to take time off? not just to expect that the mother will.

I think couples should be left to decide, but you shouldn't force companies to employ people part-time against their will.

I wasn't suggesting the companies should force anything on a couple. I suggested that it was perhaps the most equal way to divide time for work and for caring for the children.

BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/06/the_gender_gap.html)

Rising female millionaires?

Yet why, due to the fact that they're better represented in business?

Research by Datamonitor shows that changing social trends, including the UK's increased divorce rates and lucrative inheritances, are contributing to the rise in wealthy women.

But the business analyst says that the gap between the richest men and women is still substantial, currently standing at 112 per cent.

Here's the real point.

Ruth Whitehead, a former "penniless" professional bassoon player, set up her own independent financial adviser service, Ruth Whitehead Associates, in 1993, and has a client base made up of 50% women.

"During the 14 years I have been in this job, the ability of women to make money hasn't changed but their confidence to do so has significantly increased.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007/apr/25/pay.business)

Now, 'the ability' takes two forms (if not three as written later). The legal ability and the actual ability, the latter which may never have changed but the former certainly has over the last century.

The social ability is the last barrier, and, due to social constructs, a large part in the rise of female millionaires is, ironically, a beneficial - in monetary terms alone - part of their previously, although traces remain, subservient part in marriage in legal terms.

This comes back to my earlier point to Peepelonia, that social constructs are the reason for inequality and then further, my original point, that social constructs play a large part of why, as a society, we're harsher on women, 'we' including all society, than men.

We place different roles on the male and female and this plays into how money is often made, the position people take, the jobs people 'choose' and more.

That inequality has mostly been in favour of men in terms of controlling our societies, the fact that it's changing has much to do with the rules working against men, hence, and this is my shakier theory, the backlash against feminism.

Complicated use of commas I know :)

I really don't know about depression. I've most commonly attributed it to psychological problems. And your article notes it happens to men and women anyway.
Yes, but the article also states - in indirect terms - that only women are allowed to be depressed.

Men are s'posed to suck it up.

Eg this paragraph
Men deal with the loss of a loved one differently than women. This may also be related to their belief that men must be strong in the face of adversity. Showing emotion, some men feel, is a sign of weakness. Menf tend to assume full responsibility for their bereavement and suppress their grief. Studies show that this suppression can increase the time it takes to grieve and lead to complications such as escalating anger, aggressiveness, and substance abuse.

I'd have to say that this is probably only the case in well... I can't think of any country like that. I've not seen a culture that spurned health and fitness.
Are you saying that in your opinion men don't bother doctors less often than women?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20070610/ai_n19293349

One in 10 admits avoiding help from a health professional because of worries about ending up in hospital, according to a survey by the Men's Health Forum

Though, I wouldn't classify it as fear - I'd say it's more stubborness and cultural indoctrination than anything else.
No, I'm saying that suicide is a lot worse in Japanese society than most other places, for men and women both. The entire "honor preservation through suicide" aspect more or less fell equally among the sexes. Although the conditions differed, they were often interlinked. At least in the feudal era. Nowadays?
Nowadays men kill themselves much more often than women in Japan, almost by a ratio of 3:1

If culture of shame and response to shame would be equal between men and women wouldn't you think the numbers would be...well...closer together?

The article clearly states a number of legitimate fears the victim had regarding the power the officer had over her. It may not be putting a gun to your head, but blackmail doesn't mean willing consent and is still coercion.
Might be, might not be - But wouldn't that still fall under authority abuse rather than gender abuse?

There was a case of that in Sweden I think. The woman went to jail for rape. I thought it was fair, assuming the facts at the time were true.
Imagine that :D

So you agree that women are generally behind when it comes to legal rights and protections when compared to men.
In 3rd world countries yes.

Thought that does mean that majority of women would be under the boot, so to speak....erm...but say, let's not talk about that as my points have no prevalence there! :p
Oh come on now. You cannot seriously be making a logical leap that a scarcity of women in higher paying jobs means an automatic greater presence in lower paying jobs over men. It means exactly what it says, that there are few women in higher paying jobs. It says nothing about their presence in lower paying jobs.
Let me repeat:
To address the continuing disparities in pay between women and men, we need to raise the minimum wage...

Why would this be necessary if there wasn't more women in lower paying jobs than men? Which would also conversely imply that the women are doing different jobs from men altogether.

Also, the average earning difference is problematic statistic in the first place: Bill Gates in his hayday was making 1000$ per second - Billions of dollars per year. The average income is somewhere near 35,000$ per year. The income of that Bill Gates would need 500,000 persons, in this case men, with no income to balance it out down to average.
I did. You just didn't want to acknowledge that it was. :p
:fluffle:
Where have you been getting your news?
Locally. ;-)
There have been any number of sexual assault cases where the defendant argues against the victim by pointing out the manner of dress, behavior and even occupation, all just to somehow imply that the person consented simply by being, ergo "she was asking for it".
Yes, they might argue for it but that doesn't mean the argument had an effect on the case at least in civilized courts.

Rising female millionaires?

Yet why, due to the fact that they're better represented in business?


Yes, to an extent. There are more high money divorces but that is often because the woman gave up a high paying job to look after children/support her husband in some way. Higher divorce settlements are contributing but to call it a large part is pure speculation.



The social ability is the last barrier, and, due to social constructs, a large part in the rise of female millionaires is, ironically, a beneficial - in monetary terms alone - part of their previously, although traces remain, subservient part in marriage in legal terms.
namely?

We place different roles on the male and female and this plays into how money is often made, the position people take, the jobs people 'choose' and more.
There are always going to be different roles, while women give birth more women are going to leave work to raise children, and they are going to be proportionally more disposed to childcare.


No, I didn't suggest that. It's more the unpaid leave outside of this that is still required to raise the children but is, I believe, most normally taken by the mother as this is still the expectation. If the partner earns more, then fair enough, but considering comparative salaries, surely it is most equal for both to take time off? not just to expect that the mother will.

But also inefficient, since part-time workers earn less per hour than full-time a couple will have more money per hour worked if one works full time and one stays at home. Part time work in certain industries particularly at higher levels is not easily found.


Like I said before, we don't know how sexist our society is, we're making a best guess with results refracted through the past few decades, muddled by the issue of maternity leave (if an employer prefers to employ men based solely on them having fewer working rights re:children is that sexist?) and the side issue of differing biology regarding childbirth. There is a fair margin for error.

Maybe this is the time to say: I used to laugh at the idea of "womb envy" but now I'm pretty sure I actually have it. Certainly I resent women for having something I don't, women in general which is the thread topic, although I can honestly say that I hate no woman. Have done, yes. Still hate, no.

Is "I hate all women but love all women too" an acceptable answer?

Perhaps it would be more acceptable to talk about my own penis, and all the developmental and hormonal characteristics it implies. I love it and hate it. I would rather the human race were all people, unsorted by fate -- by events before their personhood.

Alike in body and differing only in their character, as formed by their individual choices since the birth of consciousness. Before that, all children should have identical environments. The character should be written on a blank slate, godlike.

All power to the free will! To the hell of superstition and fate with this genetic lottery of sex!

I hate it. I hate that my human perceptions are biased by an accident of my birth, the sex I am. It is an impediment to my understanding! Someone prove that consciousness depends on the division of humanity into sexes, and I will gladly retract.

I have this beautiful thing, consciousness. It's pure beauty, I revere it in any measure (yes, even in plants) yet to possess it I must have the body. And this body is shackled to reproduction. My consciousness must live by a Law of nature! I hate that.

I love all living things. Yet I hate nature, I hate the past. I don't fear death ... so let me out. Let me go, you tyrant of the past, you cruel god evolution! You. Dead. Hand.

I have much sympathy for those who want to change their gender. But it's a sad sympathy, because that really isn't possible. Far better that no person have this choice, that there be no sex, no gender, but what an adult with character formed enough to make the decision would choose, in the shape and function of their own body.

We will go there. We will make the will the whole of the law of nature. Or simply collapse from pointlessness, as so many civilizations have done. And if we get there, we will be sentient beings which not one of us alive today would call "human."

I want to go. I want to create these ideal, sexless beings who exist only by their own will. And I am willing to surrender the mantle of "supreme lifeform on Earth" to these better beings, which the crippling effect of sex has rendered beyond my understanding. I can dream of them, no more.

Now tell me someone: am I wrong in thinking that all dualisms, all divisions between human and "other," between rational and "other," between loved and "other" ... are written on our blank slates before we can even read them? By this curse of nature, sex. By this legacy of competition-within-interdependence, sex. By this poisonous spice-of-life, which decrees not just our birth but our death, sex?

Oh, I have the hate. But no living thing deserves it.

Just a little tribute to my sponsor here.

My previous post was number 13806666 on the Jolt forums.

If 666 is the number of the Beast, 6666 should be the number of his dad, right?

*bed*

Now tell me someone: am I wrong in thinking that all dualisms, all divisions between human and "other," between rational and "other," between loved and "other" ... are written on our blank slates before we can even read them?

I believe that we are born with the capacity to hate and to love. As for your others points, rationality or some other emotion or conduct, are these dictated by a previous imprinting? I don't know. Humans are supposed to be rational beings and yet... some of the things we do lack rationality. I guess one has to think about this concisely in order to answer and I haven't done that. But I have pondered this issue in more than one ocassion.

By this curse of nature, sex. By this legacy of competition-within-interdependence, sex. By this poisonous spice-of-life, which decrees not just our birth but our death, sex?

In all honesty I don't know how to answer this last part. Sex dictating what course we'll take in life, how are we to compete, or how we're going to die? I would like to say this isn't how things are, but I lack any evidence. I can't disprove your point. Furthermore, I'm not so sure I understand my own species enough to even begin to explain it. I don't wish to understand it because, the day I do, I will perhaps lose what little faith I have in humanity.

I'm a big, big fan of Pepsi. Pepsi is the best cola that was or could be created, and I'm sure they only indulged in the Cola Wars for some kind of sick entertainment.

The other day, I was innocently going about my business, when this guy walks past drinking from a bottle of Coca-Cola. Actually drinking from it.

So I stabbed him.

He had it coming.

Worst part is you made me drop the bottle, you fucker.

Why? I thought they couldn't help it.
Ever read Moby Dick?

Look, if the whale chose to wear no clothing and just swim around in the sea so sexily, then Moby was asking for Captain Ahab to rape it.

Hey did you know that I got hemrroids from having sex with a guy about a month ago? So much for trusting those instincts there.

Didn't Fass say that your couldn't get that from that?

Okay, I've been attempting to refrain from making this personal, but I think maybe you need it made personal to understand what you're saying.

I was sexually assaulted by a guy with whom I was romantically involved. I had certainly tried to attract him on numerous occasions. Please, if you believe it to be true, tell me outright that you think that made me "disgusting" and undeserving of sympathy after he ignored me when I cried and told him "no." Please, tell me outright that I was "asking for it" when I wore clothes that made me look pretty around him. Please, tell me outright that he couldn't help himself, and had no choice but to assault me. If that is what you believe, have the balls to say it to someone who's actually been sexually assaulted.

My deepest sympathies. No one should ever have to experience anything like that, and I'm sorry you did.

Yes, as I asked before, define "should"

"Not obligated but in your best interest to"?


Well, sure, I know there are channels designed to appeal to women.

Oxygen!

There are also channels designed to appeal to men,

Spike!

channels designed to appeal to black people,

BET!

channels designed to appeal to Spanish-speaking people,

I can't pronounce it, but it's there!

And so on...


Neither.

Wha? Breast Cancer gets treated far more seriously in culture. Walk-a-thons and charity and the like.

Prostate Cancer gets "Turn your head and cough".

Lastly, isn't the word "stud" a lot like the word "bitch"? Both are, in a sense, somewhat dehumanizing in the sense that both words are derived from animals. Bitch is derived from a female dog, while stud is derived from stallions used for breeding. Really the only difference is that one is negative and the other positive.

Which is kind of a significant difference, I'll admit. But are they different beyond that?

Ah, but which gender suffers pregnancy more?

"Suffers"? Odd, most pregnant women I have met never equate pregancy to suffering. As well, as men can't get pregnant, this is a rather... stupid point, to say the least. Not to mention having no bearing on the point he was making that Men tend to die before women do.



As a society, we tend to prefer complete tits to total asses.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but I take this as meaning men are always asses? Thus they deserve to die? The first is untrue, at least for the most part, and the second is despicable for obvious reasons, and is downright sexist. See, women can be sexist to, Barring.


Females are more used to suffering?


For the love of Christ, no. As a male, who has depression, and has gone through suicidal episodes on many occassions, I would definitely not. I think the problem lies in that in our society, women who are depressed do not face nearly the same stigma as men do. You may say that it is because women are "supposed" to be more emotional, and social biases and what not, and you would be right. However, I consider these social biases far worse for men than women, because quite frankly a male who is depressed is put to an almost pariah position, and judged extremely harshly by others. Hence, why I believe men probably are more suicidal: They seek help less, because to admit to being "emotional"(I.E. depressed) will pariah them, and make them the butt of all sorts of nastiness(I have found this out through my own experiences).



Keeping the woman in the house where she belongs?


Er... I don't know what you know about single mothers, but most of the time they work. Coming from a divorced family, I can attest that extremely special treatment is given to the female, and the male must *prove* he is capable of raising children, whereas the female is almost de facto considered capable. Even if they aren't. Such as with my mother(Who was an unfit parent to raise children, but that's another story. The point I'm getting at is that my Dad had to spend five years in Courts convincing them that my mother, an Alchoholic abusive parent who was evicted from houses and apartments after six months, for several years running, was not capable of raising children.)




Men are violent, women can attest to that.


Christ, so are women. You do realize that most abuse on males by females goes unreported, due to, *gasp* social stigmas and biases against men who are beat(I.E. they are not man enough to protect themselves, in a sense. And hell, you have a much harder time convincing the cops and the courts that you are being beat if you a man than if you are a woman).

Ah, but which gender suffers pregnancy more?

"Suffers"? Odd, most pregnant women I have met never equate pregancy to suffering. As well, as men can't get pregnant, this is a rather... stupid point, to say the least. Not to mention having no bearing on the point he was making that Men tend to die before women do.



As a society, we tend to prefer complete tits to total asses.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but I take this as meaning men are always asses? Thus they deserve to die? The first is untrue, at least for the most part, and the second is despicable for obvious reasons, and is downright sexist. See, women can be sexist to, Barring.


Females are more used to suffering?


For the love of Christ, no. As a male, who has depression, and has gone through suicidal episodes on many occassions, I would definitely not. I think the problem lies in that in our society, women who are depressed do not face nearly the same stigma as men do. You may say that it is because women are "supposed" to be more emotional, and social biases and what not, and you would be right. However, I consider these social biases far worse for men than women, because quite frankly a male who is depressed is put to an almost pariah position, and judged extremely harshly by others. Hence, why I believe men probably are more suicidal: They seek help less, because to admit to being "emotional"(I.E. depressed) will pariah them, and make them the butt of all sorts of nastiness(I have found this out through my own experiences).



Keeping the woman in the house where she belongs?


Er... I don't know what you know about single mothers, but most of the time they work. Coming from a divorced family, I can attest that extremely special treatment is given to the female, and the male must *prove* he is capable of raising children, whereas the female is almost de facto considered capable. Even if they aren't. Such as with my mother(Who was an unfit parent to raise children, but that's another story. The point I'm getting at is that my Dad had to spend five years in Courts convincing them that my mother, an Alchoholic abusive parent who was evicted from houses and apartments after six months, for several years running, was not capable of raising children.)




Men are violent, women can attest to that.


Christ, so are women. You do realize that most abuse on males by females goes unreported, due to, *gasp* social stigmas and biases against men who are beat(I.E. they are not man enough to protect themselves, in a sense. And hell, you have a much harder time convincing the cops and the courts that you are being beat if you a man than if you are a woman).

I promised an answer. I am drunk, really very drunk and rather emotionally unstable to boot. But I haZ working keyboard!!!
...
So ignore my whole post. I am very very drunk, though you may not believe it by my diction. I am very drunk, and physically tired to boot (long day, not in the best of health).

Yet I trust my judgement in replying to you. I am accustomed to being drunk, and make allowances. I double-check, I read my own words as though they were written by another. I am content that I am committing no crime. Would you disagree?
...
Welcome to NSG. Your argument was weakened, not strengthened, by the length you indulged yourself in. Why? Quite simply: almost no-one did read it.

If I were sober, I would have disagreed more. I would have been more harsh and more critical. But I restrained myself, knowing the limitations which intoxication puts on my judgement.

I commend your post as sincere and thoughtful. To make oneself clear is a virtue, which outweighs the sin of wasted words. To be succinct (brief but unambiguous) is an art I have not myself mastered, despite two years of practice here.

Thanks much for your attention ;) How ironic (and yet fair) that the only person who pays attention to my post is drunk. :P I say fair because I didn't pay attention to most posts in the thread - I read about as far as page 6 before replying. To clarify my motive in posting, it was more to present my thoughts on the issue to any who happened to be interested than to make an argument one way or another. But it seems I must reconsider my evaluation of drunken behavior more favorably ;)

To succinctly rephrase my initial post: The answers to the questions "Is a woman totally or partially to blame if she is drunk and/or wears revealing clothing?" depends hugely on the phrasing of the questions, and also upon the interpretation. Perhaps 5% of the 26% thought she was totally responsible, and perhaps 0% thought she was totally responsible. In both cases, the claim is equally valid. Point being, as roundly condemned as that statistic was, it really doesn't tell much. I tried to show with my long-winded post why assigning some responsibility for self-protection does not necessarily equal blaming the victim, with the idea that those who really cared to be open to things would take it for what it's worth. ;)

That wasn't very succinct at all, was it? :( Anyway, it shows why I don't often post here. :P I have occasionally read certain threads that pique my interest for some time, and have posted occasionally, but since my posts are generally too involved to be paid attention to, I don't post much. :P (also, frequently the topics don't merit the kind of effort I like to put in my posts, or else everything I might say has already been said)

I have bolded the relevant phrases. You seem to be saying "yes responsible but no to being blamed."

I'm being nice about this. Ah'm a happy drunk tonight.

I think I addressed the issue later in the post. Saying to a friend, "You should be more careful," is completely different from saying, "If you get raped, you deserve it for being careless," yes?

(there is no positive correlation between wearing revealing clothing and being raped)

In that case, there's no reason why the clothing someone wears should reflect at all on their responsibility or lack thereof ;) My point stands, however: if it is perceived that a woman could protect herself to some degree by wearing more modest clothing, then responses to the question of whether she's partially responsible will reflect that. This doesn't necessarily reflect a justification of rape.

Smunkeeville and Lao Tzu

The name Smunkeeville does stand out in my mind, though I can only rarely keep track of who says what. But I love the quote, in spite of (or perhaps because of) the condescension inherent. I shall keep it for future use! :D

Friends are the only ones who should talk to someone about enlightened self interest; other romantic stuff about friendship

Well, sure ;)

Tools and stuff

I still think it's similar. If you own a gun (or a car) and you don't take proper precautions to protect it, and someone uses it to commit a crime, you will not be put on trial with them, for their crime, generally speaking. If someone steals my car and commits a traffic violation, and I can show that I wasn't driving it, I'm not going to be responsible for that traffic violation. I will be held responsible for leaving the keys in the ignition. If I have a gun and leave it out and someone steals it and commits murder, I'm not even going to be charged with involuntary manslaughter. I will be charged with not keeping my gun locked up. I think the principle holds with respect to protecting yourself from any crime. There may not be laws against being careless as there are with vehicles and firearms, however.

Fine lines & Judgement

Interesting. Why are juries an unjust matter?

The real world, the ideal world, NSG, and not speaking from the clouds

Umm... Not sure I followed all of that, but as I try to sift between the ideal and the real and how the two interact, I frequently do seem to speak from the clouds. Probably why I'm rarely heeded. :P

Yes. Apply the standard printed on medicine which might have impairing side-effects. "Do not drive or operate heavy machinery." Make allowances in decisions for possible impairment of your own judgement. Self-limit your capacity to do harm by judgement you know to be impaired.

Naturally. However, if your judgement is impaired, how can you properly judge the allowances, or even whether or not your judgement is impaired? It depends on how drunk someone gets, I suppose, and how rational they are when sober...

Sure, noob. Make a valid straw-man argument, and I will be the first to applaude.

That wasn't what I meant. :P I meant that applying a straw-man argument to a line of reasoning (though perhaps this is ad hominim? but the two are similar) doesn't invalidate the reasoning because a straw-man argument is fallacious. In other words, saying that "we cannot hold people accountable for locking up their guns, because murderers might use that argument to excuse their crime of stealing a gun and shooting someone" doesn't invalidate the point that we need to hold people accountable for locking up their guns.

...so your honest argument is "men have no more self-control than dogs"? Seriously? And you don't think that's maybe just a little insulting to men?

Not just dogs. Toasters. I mean, it's not like men have brains and the ability to apply moral and ethical thoughts to their actions.

Frankly, if SL is right, then all men should be imprisoned immediately. We literally should not be permitted to walk the streets if our self-control is overwhelmed by a low-cut top.

On the ridiculous side, for instance, came a survey by Marketing magazine of the nation's most-loved and least-loved celebrities. The respondents' top five most loved were men: Paul McCartney, Lewis Hamilton, Gary Lineker, Simon Cowell and David Beckham. Of the five most hated, the top four were women: Heather Mills, Amy Winehouse, Victoria Beckham and Kerry Katona, with Simon Cowell coming in at number five. On some level, reacting to this at all seemed stupid, and yet ...

Two marginaly relevant things here. First off, it seems that there are only nine people in this list, as Simon Cowell is stated twice, and surely they didn't ask two different groups?

Second, It's kind of funny that SuperAwesomeHotFootballer Beckham was on the loved list, and TheChickThatKeepsPeopleFromDatingTheFootballer Beckham was on the hated list. Makes me wonder where these poll participants are from? Was it mentioned at all?


On the subject, this whole topic begs the quesition. Nobody's clarified that people Hate Women (tm). For instance, rape happens to guys. Frequently.

I have no time to read this entire thing and get drawn in, I'm afraid, but I was rather amused with the poll, and the rape center thing caught my eye after that. Apologies.

Of course you could take it up with a certain English professor at Macquarie University whom I unfortuatly forgotten who wrote up a paper on why slut and stud which had similar meanings one had become offensive the other had become something to which people would be congratulated for. If I remember her name or find the paper (it was a few years ago when I read it) I will tell you I am sure she will be thrilled to hear that she is wrong and who knows she might even give you her job as one of the many people who write the Macquarie Dictionary.

Your attempt at condescension is cute.

I don't write dictionaries at a University, so I can't possibly figure out how to read one, is that what you're saying? Because I provided you with two definitions taken from dictionary.com that showed the origins of the words "slut" and "stud" were entirely different, and you refused to acknowledge it. Please address my argument.

I hold the door for the person behind me, male or female.

Same. It's common courtesy.

Honestly I'm not seeing that, heh and as for the most hated celebraties being woman, i'm gonna stick my neck out and suggest that the majority of people that answer these 'celebrity' polls are also women. So perhaps the question should have been, why do women hate other women?

I think that is a question that needs to be asked, and although it hasn't been addressed so far, I don't think the OP excludes that. The question wasn't "why do men hate women?" it was "why do we hate women?"

How is it that a stupid poll is somehow evidence that women are more hated?

True. Your posts are far better evidence than a poll.

I don't hate women, but sometimes I feel like arguments like this hurt their cause: Take this statement about society 'hating' women because the conviction rates of rape cases has fallen: first of all, just because a case is brought before the court, especially for crimes like murder and rape, it doesn't mean that it will end in a conviction in favor of the accuser, that's not how the criminal justice system works. It does work, however, when it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed. In the last 40ish years, we've advanced a long way in terms of forensic science, which can be used to prove or disprove whether or not the accused has really committed a crime.

So forgive us if we don't automatically convict people of crimes like rape without investigating it first, and don't claim we hate women because we try to equally evaluate the evidence, and discover their isn't a case at all.

I'm sure I read someone talking about the UK rape conviction rate being 5.7%, that is true but misleading since it is largely due to rapes not being reported, or a lack of evidence (with the unique complications with proving rape).

Rape cases that get to court have a conviction rate of about 50%, and considering the evidential test to take them to court is that the CPS considers it likely (as in 51% chance) to secure a conviction that's not a surprising figure.

Both of you please read this (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/policememos.nsf/0/AD1CB5F0F60A41D58625706A001CAC71?OpenDocument) article which talks about the scandal in St. Louis and Philadelphia a few years ago concerning rape.

In both cities (and other cities, to either a lesser or less publicized degree) a LARGE percentage of reported rapes were: classified as lesser crimes; detailed in memos that were then shelved, as opposed to an official computer police report for other crimes; classified as "unfounded" because the victim reporting was too upset to give details/had a criminal record/"didn't sound convincing"; dropped for lack of evidence, though the rape kits taken had never been processed.

As a woman, I can say that the threat of being raped is one of the worst things I can imagine. I would rather be beaten black and blue than be raped. Yet rape is considered a lesser crime than stabbings, muggings and other violent crimes. And for those who think that most rapes are cases of a woman changing her mind the next morning, you usually have to prove your attacker assaulted and physically forced you into sex, despite your struggles. You can't say "he was bigger than me and threatening, I was afraid he'd kill me", you have to show that you tried to get away anyway and have the marks to prove it.

Personally, I hold disdain for not just women, but anyone, who thinks that all there is in life is getting high, having sex, and bragging about it.

The "socialite" group of bratty children with their parents money seems to dictate the mainstream of what is cool, which is pitiful.

Also, as far as the feminist movement goes, I lump it right in with affirmative action.

I don't care what genitals you have, what color you are, or what you like having sex with. If you aren't qualified for the job, you shouldn't get it. End of story.

As a person who has been passed over for more than one promotion due to "office politics" where we didn't have enough women or blacks or hispanics in a certain work area to meet quota. These people were fresh out of school with no experience, and a barely discernible ability to speak the english language.

And I think it's quite sad.

</soapbox> <tox bashing>

Personally, I hold disdain for not just women, but anyone, who thinks that all there is in life is getting high, having sex, and bragging about it.

The "socialite" group of bratty children with their parents money seems to dictate the mainstream of what is cool, which is pitiful.

Also, as far as the feminist movement goes, I lump it right in with affirmative action.

I don't care what genitals you have, what color you are, or what you like having sex with. If you aren't qualified for the job, you shouldn't get it. End of story.

As a person who has been passed over for more than one promotion due to "office politics" where we didn't have enough women or blacks or hispanics in a certain work area to meet quota. These people were fresh out of school with no experience, and a barely discernible ability to speak the english language.

And I think it's quite sad.

</soapbox> <tox bashing>

I guess that in the issue of gender and ethnicity, many people tend to go overboard, to abuse or justify their actions taking cover behind the "But we're an equal opportunity eployer" bs. There's equality, yeah, but having equality shouldn't result in the detriment of others, regardless of sex, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

Frankly, if SL is right, then all men should be imprisoned immediately. We literally should not be permitted to walk the streets if our self-control is overwhelmed by a low-cut top.

You know, I just thought about it, and I totally wore a bathing suit to go swimming in a pool that was open to both genders. I'm soooo lucky I didn't get raped, I was just asking for it with all that bare skin and spandex.

Personally, I hold disdain for not just women, but anyone, who thinks that all there is in life is getting high, having sex, and bragging about it.

The "socialite" group of bratty children with their parents money seems to dictate the mainstream of what is cool, which is pitiful.

Also, as far as the feminist movement goes, I lump it right in with affirmative action.

I don't care what genitals you have, what color you are, or what you like having sex with. If you aren't qualified for the job, you shouldn't get it. End of story.

As a person who has been passed over for more than one promotion due to "office politics" where we didn't have enough women or blacks or hispanics in a certain work area to meet quota. These people were fresh out of school with no experience, and a barely discernible ability to speak the english language.

And I think it's quite sad.

</soapbox> <tox bashing>

The women in your area don't speak comprehensible English? I won't go near the other two examples because this thread isn't about race.

To the majority of feminists, "feminism" doesn't mean "I should get thing X over you because I have a vagina", it means, "Hi, I'm a human being and I would like to vote, have a job, make choices about my own life, and be free from the threat of getting stoned to death for doing it."

Not just dogs. Toasters. I mean, it's not like men have brains and the ability to apply moral and ethical thoughts to their actions.

Frankly, if SL is right, then all men should be imprisoned immediately. We literally should not be permitted to walk the streets if our self-control is overwhelmed by a low-cut top.

Indeed. On the bright side, at least you guys aren't bacon.

http://www.donutage.org/elements/made_of_meat.gif

You know, I just thought about it, and I totally wore a bathing suit to go swimming in a pool that was open to both genders. I'm soooo lucky I didn't get raped, I was just asking for it with all that bare skin and spandex.

I've used a similar line of argument before (beach attire) and I think it really helps to drive at what this is really about. There's no logical reason why the amount of clothing required to drive men into a frenzy should be different at a beach or at a pool.

There seems to be a strong crossover between those that think that some women should dress more "modestly" and those who agree with the "26% of respondents [who] thought that a woman was totally or partially responsible for being raped if she was wearing revealing clothing". I think a lot of it is to do with rape being thought of as almost a societal punishment for immoral ("slutty") standards of dress.

Why do we hate women?

Speak for yourself. I experience hostile feelings towards other men more easily than toward women.

That's the most absurd thing I have heard on the subject of gender relations, ever.


Especially since women actually attempt suicide more than men.

Especially since women actually attempt suicide more than men.

To be fair, men don't report it as often so we don't quite know for sure where the percentages lie.

Both of you please read this (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/policememos.nsf/0/AD1CB5F0F60A41D58625706A001CAC71?OpenDocument) article which talks about the scandal in St. Louis and Philadelphia a few years ago concerning rape.

In both cities (and other cities, to either a lesser or less publicized degree) a LARGE percentage of reported rapes were: classified as lesser crimes; detailed in memos that were then shelved, as opposed to an official computer police report for other crimes; classified as "unfounded" because the victim reporting was too upset to give details/had a criminal record/"didn't sound convincing"; dropped for lack of evidence, though the rape kits taken had never been processed.

That's a disturbing article, but I was referring strictly to the UK conviction rates.

That's a disturbing article, but I was referring strictly to the UK conviction rates.

As disturbing as it was, I did find a little dark humor in there.

His comment: "This meets the elements of . . . forcible rape. Kind of obvious there."

Which is kind of funny in the way it was phrased while simultaneously making the article all the more depressing.

I think that is a question that needs to be asked, and although it hasn't been addressed so far, I don't think the OP excludes that. The question wasn't "why do men hate women?" it was "why do we hate women?"

It has been addressed actually, possibly not correctly but addressed.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13806279&postcount=333

Yet you're right, I specifically put 'we' and have mostly kept to that where I'm talking about society rather than specific points between men and women in terms of equality.

Get some soap and you can have yourself a right nice bath in that river of tears.

It's true. Feminists need to stop whining and pretending they have it worse than men because they don't.

I believe that we are born with the capacity to hate and to love. As for your others points, rationality or some other emotion or conduct, are these dictated by a previous imprinting? I don't know.

I'm a little perplexed by that post myself, to be honest.

On more sober reflection, of course the similarities between men and women outweigh the differences (people of both varieties love and hate, as you put it.)

Humans are supposed to be rational beings and yet... some of the things we do lack rationality. I guess one has to think about this concisely in order to answer and I haven't done that. But I have pondered this issue in more than one ocassion.

Hmm. Rationality is more a capacity than the everyday conduct of most of us, I would say. We can be rational when we have to, but being irrational is ... more fun?

The perception that women are more irrational ("changing her mind is a woman's prerogative") I think comes from the fact that their moods can change for hormonal reasons, in a space of days. Same person, different thinking (though of course with the ability to be rational when necessary).

But I would say men are just as "moody" and prone to indulge themselves in irrationality. It's like a "male mood" which goes unnoticed because it is more constant. It's a aggressive, arrogant and selfish ... but it can be factored out when a man is aware of it.

There is also the fact that human brains develop differently in the two sexes, but I'm abandoning that line of thinking because I think the human mind is flexible enough to bridge that gap. Today, the presence of sex hormones and their effect on mood seems to me more significant in dividing us.

Neither a man nor a woman is fully human by themselves. The "human viewpoint" needs to be synthesized for each, which might even be why rationality takes effort.

In all honesty I don't know how to answer this last part. Sex dictating what course we'll take in life, how are we to compete, or how we're going to die?

Ah, I over-reached I think. Sexual reproduction is such a dominant pattern across all life that I blame it for mortality -- the inevitability of death. But I'm not even going to try to prove it. There aren't enough examples of asexual beings to provide a counter-example or speculate about what life on earth would be like without sexual differentiation.

As to our courses in life, opportunities and ways of competing -- these are social matters and I absolutely approve of the doubling of available talent in all fields. I feel lucky to live in a world changed by feminism, because its a better world than the old patriarchal one, even if it harder for me to get a good job or social status when I have to compete with women as well as men. It's worth it to live in a great society.

============

Thanks much for your attention ;) How ironic (and yet fair) that the only person who pays attention to my post is drunk.

There was another reply to part of your post.

I apply a rule of thumb based on the Post/View ratio you can see on the General front page. For each post, there are roughly ten views. It might be overly generous, but by this rule of thumb: if two people replied to your post, twenty people wred it.

It's true. Feminists need to stop whining and pretending they have it worse than men because they don't.

Hey, is your problem with feminists that they "whine and pretend" or that laws based on feminism (quotas etc) harm your individual interests?

I don't think you can say "both" because the second is really just "whining" yourself.

Hey, is your problem with feminists that they "whine and pretend" or that laws based on feminism (quotas etc) harm your individual interests?

I don't think you can say "both" because the second is really just "whining" yourself.

No, see, his problem is that he is being viciously oppressed by the existence of cable channels aimed at women. Poor, poor Soviestan.

No, see, his problem is that he is being viciously oppressed by the existence of cable channels aimed at women. Poor, poor Soviestan.

it's not just the cable channels(which is a real and clear example of sexism against men), it's the whole feminist agenda.

it's not just the cable channels(which is a real and clear example of sexism against men), it's the whole feminist agenda.

I am deeply curious as to how the existence of cable channels aimed at female viewers is sexist towards men, and even more curious as to how the existence of cable channels aimed at male viewers is apparently not similarly sexist towards women.

And what "feminist agenda"? The terrible, horrible idea that women and men should both be treated like people?

No, see, his problem is that he is being viciously oppressed by the existence of cable channels aimed at women. Poor, poor Soviestan.

That was a rather silly point, yes.

It actually runs entirely counter to any claim that Soviestan makes that he's being discriminated against! If these shows which aren't aimed at men (though I bet a lot of men watch them anyway) DIDN'T have their own channel, they'd have to share some other channel. It's marginalization instead of quotas, you'd think he'd be a fan?

I don't have cable myself. I rather like turning on the TV, checking the only five channels I get and turning the stupid thing back off again because it's all crap. :P

That was a rather silly point, yes.

It actually runs entirely counter to any claim that Soviestan makes that he's being discriminated against! If these shows which aren't aimed at men (though I bet a lot of men watch them anyway) DIDN'T have their own channel, they'd have to share some other channel. It's marginalization instead of quotas, you'd think he'd be a fan?

I don't have cable myself. I rather like turning on the TV, checking the only five channels I get and turning the stupid thing back off again because it's all crap. :P

Indeed, I can't quite fathom how having more slots available on other channels for "masculine" programming is destroying Soviestan's life. (And I don't have cable either, though I rather wish I did, if only for Comedy Central and the edumacational channels.) :)

I'm about to dump Direct TV because there's nothing on. I'm going to go with the NetFlix box instead. If you don't like something, don't watch it - and even better, don't pay for it!

The Feminist Agenda is to buy all the comfortable shoes and that makes Soviestan really mad.

:mad:

Like that.

Complaining about any show aimed at women is like complaining that Olay soft facial scrub is aimed at women, it's a marketing ploy not a conspiracy.

Ooh, look, Monday Night Football - a clear sign of man's determination to dominate Monday nights.

The real problem is that some people fear that where the ground is leveled, they'll be unable to compete.

I am deeply curious as to how the existence of cable channels aimed at female viewers is sexist towards men, and even more curious as to how the existence of cable channels aimed at male viewers is apparently not similarly sexist towards women.

First, there are far more women channels than men(if there are any). Second, it's sexist because it sends the message that male issues and views aren't as important as female(which apparently are so important they deserve entire networks. :rolleyes:)


And what "feminist agenda"? The terrible, horrible idea that women and men should both be treated like people?

No, more like the idea of quotas and affirmative action saying that someone should get a job or into a university simply because they have a vagina. It is wrong, it is wrong, it is wrong.

Indeed, I can't quite fathom how having more slots available on other channels for "masculine" programming is destroying Soviestan's life. (And I don't have cable either, though I rather wish I did, if only for Comedy Central and the edumacational channels.) :)

I'm done talking about Soviestan now, since it seems he doesn't want to reply to me.

I like the BBC wildlife documentaries and so on, but I really question the educational value of any audio-visual media. "Seeing is believing" but it also takes up most of the viewer's attention.

Have you had this experience? You watch a show with interest and feel like you're learning lots of stuff ... then later you try to talk about it and find that you have only one or two facts. From perhaps half-an-hour of 'study.' And then you're just describing what the pictures looked like.

Oh, it's a form of knowledge I guess. I prefer the pure words, that's the part of my brain I think with.

</tangent>

First, there are far more women channels than men(if there are any). Second, it's sexist because it sends the message that male issues and views aren't as important as female(which apparently are so important they deserve entire networks. :rolleyes:)

I don't even know where to begin with this silliness. Besides the fact that many, many channels are aimed at men - that is, for example, the explicit point of SpikeTV - the existence of channels like Lifetime and Oxygen has nothing to do with any belief in the importance of women's views and everything to do with advertisers wanting a place to put commercials for tampons and skin cream. But, hey, given the preponderance of channels aimed at children, which almost certain outnumber those targeted towards either gender, I guess we should be worried about vast anti-adult conspiracies, eh? :rolleyes:


No, more like the idea of quotas and affirmative action saying that someone should get a job or into a university simply because they have a vagina. It is wrong, it is wrong, it is wrong.

Quotas are still illegal, just like they were every single other time people have cited them as an example of unfair treatment, and no feminist thinks that anyone should get special treatment "just because they have a vagina." They simply think that no one should get special treatment just because they have a penis, either, which is rather a change from how Western societies have worked throughout history.

Your attempt at condescension is cute.

I don't write dictionaries at a University, so I can't possibly figure out how to read one, is that what you're saying? Because I provided you with two definitions taken from dictionary.com that showed the origins of the words "slut" and "stud" were entirely different, and you refused to acknowledge it. Please address my argument.

It would help if I knew what your argument is? Is it that slut and stud don't have similar meanings? I know you gave me a list of definitions for the both words I gave you another definition taken from a dictionary I did give you my source (and I know you gave me yours) that said that a slut was slang for a promiscuous women. And that was not what I was saying because then that would mean that I too do not know how to read one, I know what I said and I also know that it was a fallacy appeal to authority but as I said I gave you another definition of slut which is similar to a stud.

Hey, is your problem with feminists that they "whine and pretend" or that laws based on feminism (quotas etc) harm your individual interests?

I don't think you can say "both" because the second is really just "whining" yourself.

laws based on feminism harm everyone, not just my personal interests.

I'm done talking about Soviestan now, since it seems he doesn't want to reply to me.

I like the BBC wildlife documentaries and so on, but I really question the educational value of any audio-visual media. "Seeing is believing" but it also takes up most of the viewer's attention.

Have you had this experience? You watch a show with interest and feel like you're learning lots of stuff ... then later you try to talk about it and find that you have only one or two facts. From perhaps half-an-hour of 'study.' And then you're just describing what the pictures looked like.

Oh, it's a form of knowledge I guess. I prefer the pure words, that's the part of my brain I think with.

</tangent>

Oh, I think documentary programs aren't nearly as good for pure educational value as reading a book on the subject at hand - but they're generally prettier to look at, and often feature topics I wouldn't have actively sought out to learn about if they weren't so easily available to me. And, you know, there are times when one just feels like being lazy and staring at a screen for an hour or so, and it'd be nice if I had better options than much of the crap on network TV. :)

An unlevel playing field is no excuse for anything. Failure is the result of improper utilization of your resources. In other words, if you don't have something, use what you do have to compensate for it. Read into that what you will based on the context of the thread.

I'm not sure why the OP equates rape and hate.

Rape is about exercising power and control; it's related to the dynamics of dominance and submission and to social hierarchy.

The male rapist of females most likely has ~no~ feelings for women at all rather than hating women. If anything, the male rapist of females is status-shy and seeking to reinforce their self esteem by dominating a victim. This is sociopathic behavior, not a cultural rubric.


What is worth noting is that some cultures are more likely to give credence to victim blaming. In Latin America, chaperones are required because "Of course, if he is alone with her, he will not be able to resist temptation." The degree to which males and females have unequal rights and prerogatives tends to correlate with acceptance of victim blaming.

And credit to feminists for working to minimize the gap between the rights, prerogatives, and levels of social regard accorded to men and women.

But again ... I'd say that hatred of women is also probably not the source of lagging evolution in cultural equality.

I don't even know where to begin with this silliness. Besides the fact that many, many channels are aimed at men - that is, for example, the explicit point of SpikeTV - the existence of channels like Lifetime and Oxygen has nothing to do with any belief in the importance of women's views and everything to do with advertisers wanting a place to put commercials for tampons and skin cream. But, hey, given the preponderance of channels aimed at children, which almost certain outnumber those targeted towards either gender, I guess we should be worried about vast anti-adult conspiracies, eh? :rolleyes:

You can try to write off the establishment of women networks as purely for marketing but it doesn't change the fact they slight men. A number of their programming shows men as bad or victimizing women who "become strong" and "stand up for themselves" and all that other bullshit. It just re-enforces the idea men are angry woman-beaters.

Quotas are still illegal, just like they were every single other time people have cited them as an example of unfair treatment, and no feminist thinks that anyone should get special treatment "just because they have a vagina." They simply think that no one should get special treatment just because they have a penis, either, which is rather a change from how Western societies have worked throughout history.
Please. Men have a natural advantage when it comes to working that employers should consider when hiring. Men will never waste a business' time being pregnant or on maturity leave, getting paid while not helping the business in anyway. It's unfair to business to force them to pretend they shouldn't do what's best for them.

I'm not sure why the OP equates rape and hate.

Rape is about exercising power and control; it's related to the dynamics of dominance and submission and to social hierarchy.

The male rapist of females most likely has ~no~ feelings for women at all rather than hating women. If anything, the male rapist of females is status-shy and seeking to reinforce their self esteem by dominating a victim. This is sociopathic behavior, not a cultural rubric.


What is worth noting is that some cultures are more likely to give credence to victim blaming. In Latin America, chaperones are required because "Of course, if he is alone with her, he will not be able to resist temptation." The degree to which males and females have unequal rights and prerogatives tends to correlate with acceptance of victim blaming.

And credit to feminists for working to minimize the gap between the rights, prerogatives, and levels of social regard accorded to men and women.

But again ... I'd say that hatred of women is also probably not the source of lagging evolution in cultural equality.

Well, if you want to boil it down to the core, selfishness is the underlying issue behind just about everything you can think of that is criminal or morally reprehensible.

It's true. Feminists need to stop whining and pretending they have it worse than men because they don't.

Yeah, they get paid just the same, right?


...Right?

First, there are far more women channels than men(if there are any).

...You're kidding me. I spend a significant part of one of my posts laying out examples of exactly these kinds of stations, and you still have the gall to claim you don't know they exist?

Second, it's sexist because it sends the message that male issues and views aren't as important as female(which apparently are so important they deserve entire networks. :rolleyes:)

So SpikeTV, the man station sends the same message, doesn't it?

No, more like the idea of quotas and affirmative action saying that someone should get a job or into a university simply because they have a vagina. It is wrong, it is wrong, it is wrong.

A perfect example! Or at least it would be. If it used quotas. But it doesn't.

Because Rupert Murdoch does, and despite not being actually Jewish, he does control the mainstream media of many English-speaking countries. And because proles are thick, they repeat what's said in the media by people smarter than themselves.

Just a question did this rant have a point?

You can try to write off the establishment of women networks as purely for marketing but it doesn't change the fact they slight men. A number of their programming shows men as bad or victimizing women who "become strong" and "stand up for themselves" and all that other bullshit. It just re-enforces the idea men are angry woman-beaters.

Yeah, standing up for yourself is TOTAL bullshit! Damn those Lifetime writers, not sending women the important message that they should...um...be doormats and make men sandwiches? Ooookay.

Personally, I'm deeply worried about the anti-adult agenda in cable programming. I mean, have you seen how many channels there are aimed at children? It's shocking! Those little bastards are totally discriminating against me!

Please. Men have a natural advantage when it comes to working that employers should consider when hiring. Men will never waste a business' time being pregnant or on maturity leave, getting paid while not helping the business in anyway. It's unfair to business to force them to pretend they shouldn't do what's best for them.

Right, because men never have children or health issues, and all women spend most of their lives pregnant. Yup, that's totally accurate and reasonable. :rolleyes:

An unlevel playing field is no excuse for anything. Failure is the result of improper utilization of your resources. In other words, if you don't have something, use what you do have to compensate for it. Read into that what you will based on the context of the thread.

It certainly is an excuse, whether you do nothing and simply point at the excuse compared to working harder to overcome it is a different matter, one that people confuse.

We should aim to make the playing field level even though we deal with the one we're currently on.

Someone previously, in another thread, made the point that if I come to a wall, one I can scale due to my height, is it not my responsibility to give a leg up to someone shorter than me?

Some people make the argument, essentially, that it's not my fault the wall is too high so I have no duty to help anyone else.

This feminist agenda of building a ladder is an outrage though, that the government is funding it, well that's my tax dollars!

Ultimately, it would be nice that there's no wall at all but, in the meantime, I can certainly help.

Total mix up of analogies there but I care not.

it's not just the cable channels(which is a real and clear example of sexism against men), it's the whole feminist agenda.

Dear Lord, did we just agree? *World Asplodes*;)

It would help if I knew what your argument is? Is it that slut and stud don't have similar meanings? I know you gave me a list of definitions for the both words I gave you another definition taken from a dictionary I did give you my source (and I know you gave me yours) that said that a slut was slang for a promiscuous women.

Your contention (several pages back) was that "slut" and "stud" were more or less the same word for different genders, but that one had come to have a negative meaning and the other a positive one. My contention was that "slut" and "stud" are in no way equivalent, never have been.

To support this theory I presented definitions of each word and the meaning of their roots. The definition for "stud" as pertaining to a person was a man, "especially one notably virile and sexually active." This definition does not mention promiscuity or morality at all, it does not even hint that a "stud" is someone that has a number of sexual partners. The etymology of the word is the Old English "stod", meaning herd, as in a herd of horses, and "stand".

The definition for "slut" was a dirty, slovenly woman or an immoral woman; a prostitute. This definition is clearly negative (unless like LG you enjoy rolling in mud, in which case a slovenly woman would be good company). It goes beyond describing "immoral" sexual conduct and ascribes a basic uncleanliness of body, soul or both to the woman who is a "slut". The origin of the word comes from the Middle English word of the same spelling meaning "mud" and the Norwegian word "slutr" meaning "sleet", which is a mixture of snow and dirt--a literal and metaphoric impurity in what should be pristine.

So in my view, these two words are not equivalent in any way and never have been.

Yeah, they get paid just the same, right?


...Right?

Right.

Men will never waste a business' time being pregnant or on maturity leave, getting paid while not helping the business in anyway. It's unfair to business to force them to pretend they shouldn't do what's best for them.

Now here's something we can agree on. I'm sure you've never wasted anyone's time on maturity.

Right.

Check your facts (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/paygapgrows.htm), kiddo.

Right.

You have left me completely speechless. If you were any more divorced from reality, your name would be Andaras.

I'm not sure why the OP equates rape and hate.

Rape is about exercising power and control; it's related to the dynamics of dominance and submission and to social hierarchy.

The male rapist of females most likely has ~no~ feelings for women at all rather than hating women. If anything, the male rapist of females is status-shy and seeking to reinforce their self esteem by dominating a victim. This is sociopathic behavior, not a cultural rubric.


What is worth noting is that some cultures are more likely to give credence to victim blaming. In Latin America, chaperones are required because "Of course, if he is alone with her, he will not be able to resist temptation." The degree to which males and females have unequal rights and prerogatives tends to correlate with acceptance of victim blaming.

And credit to feminists for working to minimize the gap between the rights, prerogatives, and levels of social regard accorded to men and women.

But again ... I'd say that hatred of women is also probably not the source of lagging evolution in cultural equality.
Hall's own work delineates four major types of rapist.

* Type 1 is influenced by deviant sexual arousal, which occurs when he has thoughts of violence against women. This type is likely to be extremely impulsive.
* Type 2 is motivated by cognitive distortions, or thinking errors; he mistakenly interprets events or information differently than other men would. He believes that some women enjoy being raped, or want to be raped. For this type, rape is part of a conquest, a way of demonstrating masculinity. Most date rapists are Type 2s.
* Type 3, says Hall, is motivated by anger or emotional discontrol. These men are so angry, especially at women, that the only way for them to deal with their anger is to act out sexually toward women. Not surprisingly, this type is the most violent and most dangerous.
* Type 4 is the repeat offender. He is most likely to have been physically or sexually abused as a child. He has difficulty establishing enduring relationships, and a history of chronic problems in schools or in his family. Type 4 men break a variety of rules, both sexual and nonsexual.

Now, this is only one article, but I think it shows that at least some men are motivated by hatred and anger.

Yeah, standing up for yourself is TOTAL bullshit! Damn those Lifetime writers, not sending women the important message that they should...um...be doormats and make men sandwiches? Ooookay.

Way to miss the point. My point is the programming re-enforce negative stereotypes about men.


Right, because men never have children or health issues, and all women spend most of their lives pregnant. Yup, that's totally accurate and reasonable. :rolleyes:

put yourself in the shoes of an employer. Would you rather hire and pay a good salary to someone who will mostly likely waste months, if not years of your time to do nothing but pop out kid(s), or a hire man who won't miss large amounts of time except for rare chance of an illness? The choice is clear.

First, there are far more women channels than men(if there are any). Second, it's sexist because it sends the message that male issues and views aren't as important as female(which apparently are so important they deserve entire networks. :rolleyes:)

Heh, that's daft!

Here, I'll show you how to nail this evil feminist conspiracy: women are just dumb, and vegging out watching trash on the TV appeals to them more than doing something hard like boring out the cylinders in their hotrod. Also, because they're dumb they respond better to advertising, making them an attractive audience for the cable channels. They get more dumb girly stuff that they like because they paying for it by buying the stuff which is advertised.

Uh, hang on ...

Your contention (several pages back) was that "slut" and "stud" were more or less the same word for different genders, but that one had come to have a negative meaning and the other a positive one. My contention was that "slut" and "stud" are in no way equivalent, never have been.

To support this theory I presented definitions of each word and the meaning of their roots. The definition for "stud" as pertaining to a person was a man, "especially one notably virile and sexually active." This definition does not mention promiscuity or morality at all, it does not even hint that a "stud" is someone that has a number of sexual partners. The etymology of the word is the Old English "stod", meaning herd, as in a herd of horses, and "stand".

The definition for "slut" was a dirty, slovenly woman or an immoral woman; a prostitute. This definition is clearly negative (unless like LG you enjoy rolling in mud, in which case a slovenly woman would be good company). It goes beyond describing "immoral" sexual conduct and ascribes a basic uncleanliness of body, soul or both to the woman who is a "slut". The origin of the word comes from the Middle English word of the same spelling meaning "mud" and the Norwegian word "slutr" meaning "sleet", which is a mixture of snow and dirt--a literal and metaphoric impurity in what should be pristine.

So in my view, these two words are not equivalent in any way and never have been.

Ok yes you gave me the actual original meaning of the word, I gave you the definition of the word when it is used in slang which is commonly used that being a promiscuous women it may also be when we may say a women 'whores' herself out doesn't necessarily mean she is selling her services when used as slang. The definition of stud which you bolded in your original post on this issue also said that stud used as slang meant 'especially one notably virile and sexually active" Of course how does one be sexually active without being somewhat promiscuous

I have just read through everything posted in this thread in the last 24 hours, when I first looked at it, and I can honestly say that I have never laughed so hard in my life. Thankyou all for a very entertaining read.

That said, it seems that there are a couple of problems with the argument style here, most of which probably contribute to the overall hilarity: when someone makes an argument your response should go to the core of that argument and not some extraneous statement, this extends to "taking the piss" of poor spelling, typos, punctuation, etc; an argument does not consist of one word; telling someone that they are devoid of sense, in whatever terms, does not constitute an argument; and finally, to fall back to 4chan, don't feed the trolls.

I would also like to say 'Feminists, Rapists, Murderers and Roger Rabbit are all comparable to Nazis' and so have Godwin's law invoked.

Now here's something we can agree on. I'm sure you've never wasted anyone's time on maturity.

No and men don't waste their time on maternity leave, they may however waste their time on paternity leave. If they are able to get paternity leave something which is not always a guarantee but hey why should they be allowed time off work with pay to look after their kids.

Way to miss the point. My point is the programming re-enforce negative stereotypes about men.

Out of curiosity, how many shows on Lifetime and Oxygen have you actually watched?

Also, could you possibly explain how shows in which women leave abusive partners are horrible and sexist, while "The Man Show" is not?

put yourself in the shoes of an employer. Would you rather hire and pay a good salary to someone who will mostly likely waste months, if not years of your time to do nothing but pop out kid(s), or a hire man who won't miss large amounts of time except for rare chance of an illness? The choice is clear.

Again, because all women spend their time popping out kid(s), apparently by parthenogenesis, seeing as men apparently don't reproduce at all. Have you heard the term "father"? It refers to a man who actually has children. Sometimes these strange and mythical beings also take time off work to take care of their children! You might also have heard of similar mythical beings called "women who aren't mothers," who generally spend very little time being pregnant. I know these are really tricky concepts to understand, but please try.

Check your facts (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/paygapgrows.htm), kiddo.

*Sigh* Didn't we have this discussion in another thread? Not you and me, but all of NSG. Well, you might've been in it. My memory's a little foggy. Anyway, it doesn't say WHAT jobs. Perhaps more women are taking part-time jobs, or not taking the jobs that force you to give up your life for that precious raise :p. Or maybe some women are actually staying home as full-time mothers! :eek: Ever think of that? If women were, on a whole, paid less, why would I, as an employer, hire men? Exactly.

Ok yes you gave me the actual original meaning of the word, I gave you the definition of the word when it is used in slang which is commonly used that being a promiscuous women it may also be when we may say a women 'whores' herself out doesn't necessarily mean she is selling her services when used as slang. The definition of stud which you bolded in your original post on this issue also said that stud used as slang meant 'especially one notably virile and sexually active" Of course how does one be sexually active without being somewhat promiscuous

I found it interesting that the Collins quote had been PC-ed up to make it not so demeaning.
NOUN (Offensive) a promiscuous woman

That dictionary is going to hell. Defining a word according to what the editors think it should mean rather than what it means when people use it ... is "Bowdlerization" the word? It serves more to discredit their dictionary than to change the meaning of the word.

It is from the online, dumbed-down version of Collins though.

Just a little "aussie aussie aussie" note: the Macquarie dictionary gives "dirty slovenly woman" but for a third meaning "a promiscuous man." Yay, we can PC it with the silliest of them!

*Sigh* Didn't we have this discussion in another thread? Not you and me, but all of NSG. Well, you might've been in it. My memory's a little foggy. Anyway, it doesn't say WHAT jobs. Perhaps more women are taking part-time jobs, or not taking the jobs that force you to give up your life for that precious raise :p.

Basic reading comprehension is your friend.

Between 2002 and 2003, median annual earnings for full-time year-round women workers shrank by 0.6 percent, to $30,724, while men’s earnings remained unchanged, at $40,668.

Or maybe some women are actually staying home as full-time mothers! :eek: Ever think of that?

How on earth would that be relevant to what women are paid in the workplace?

If women were, on a whole, paid less, why would I, as an employer, hire men? Exactly.

...I do not generally approve of this sort of answer, but there's really only one thing to say to an argument this utterly nonsensical:

http://www.esreality.com/files/placeimages/2007/55173-lolwut.jpg

I have just read through everything posted in this thread in the last 24 hours, when I first looked at it, and I can honestly say that I have never laughed so hard in my life. Thankyou all for a very entertaining read.

*snip*

I would also like to say 'Feminists, Rapists, Murderers and Roger Rabbit are all comparable to Nazis' and so have Godwin's law invoked.

We don't do Godwin, you snooty noob.

Basic reading comprehension is your friend.

[/img]

Yeah, yeah, I'm low on caffiene, so sue me.
How on earth would that be relevant to what women are paid in the workplace?
It's late here, I'm low on caffiene, I missed part of the article. I'm sorry, okay? *Grumbles angrily*
...I do not generally approve of this sort of answer, but there's really only one thing to say to an argument this utterly nonsensical:

[img]http://www.esreality.com/files/placeimages/2007/55173-lolwut.jpg
Ya know what? You misinterpreted me. I'M saying, if women are making so much less, why is that happening? Eh? It can't be that they're being paid less, otherwise the above would be my answer. It can't be that they aren't working, otherwise they wouldn't have been included in that article. And if they are choosing lower paying jobs... well, they're choosing it.

Out of curiosity, how many shows on Lifetime and Oxygen have you actually watched?

Also, could you possibly explain how shows in which women leave abusive partners are horrible and sexist, while "The Man Show" is not?


The man show is sexist and also portrays a negative stereotype of men. Not all men want to drink beer and look at half-naked women( both of which are two of my least favourite activities).

Again, because all women spend their time popping out kid(s), apparently by parthenogenesis, seeing as men apparently don't reproduce at all. Have you heard the term "father"? It refers to a man who actually has children. Sometimes these strange and mythical beings also take time off work to take care of their children! You might also have heard of similar mythical beings called "women who aren't mothers," who generally spend very little time being pregnant. I know these are really tricky concepts to understand, but please try.

Men don't have to take time off work to be pregnant though.

laws based on feminism harm everyone, not just my personal interests.

Are you going to say how such laws harm everyone? Or do you have enough trouble already?

=================

An unlevel playing field is no excuse for anything. Failure is the result of improper utilization of your resources. In other words, if you don't have something, use what you do have to compensate for it. Read into that what you will based on the context of the thread.

"Failure is the result of improper utilization of your resources."

What kind of sophomoric economic fairytale is that from?

Let's just assume that there is no such thing as discrimination. Let us assume that people are nothing more than a unit with varying amounts of different 'resources.' Now everything's hunky-dory! The world is perfect!

Why even post in the thread if you are so determined to avoid the question?

==============

You have left me completely speechless. If you were any more divorced from reality, your name would be Andaras.

Not funny. I think I pay more attention to Andaras than you do, and I think you're wrong.

==============

Ya know what? You misinterpreted me. I'M saying, if women are making so much less, why is that happening? Eh? It can't be that they're being paid less, otherwise the above would be my answer. It can't be that they aren't working, otherwise they wouldn't have been included in that article. And if they are choosing lower paying jobs... well, they're choosing it.

It's a good question, but the answer won't be found by that sort of abstract market modelling. It will be found by examining individual cases and by solid statistics.

My advice: leave it for tomorrow. You're going to need caffeine :p

Ya know what? You misinterpreted me. I'M saying, if women are making so much less, why is that happening? Eh? It can't be that they're being paid less, otherwise the above would be my answer. It can't be that they aren't working, otherwise they wouldn't have been included in that article. And if they are choosing lower paying jobs... well, they're choosing it.

Sure, despite opinions such as these...

Put yourself in the shoes of an employer. Would you rather hire and pay a good salary to someone who will mostly likely waste months, if not years of your time to do nothing but pop out kid(s), or a hire man who won't miss large amounts of time except for rare chance of an illness? The choice is clear.

Simply look at trends, take government for example. The first female in government started in 1917. Near 100 years on there's only about 100 women in Congress out of 535.

Now you might say women choose not to run and you might be right but that choice is tempered by a society that has been, and to a large extent is, run by males.

Women are now legally equipped to compete but there are still social hurdles, in terms of where women are pushed in regard to career choice, the guilt laid on about choosing career over child and many, many other factors.

Add on to that the opinion held above by people such as Soviestan, and I'll tell you he's probably above average in terms of enlightened opinions overall, then you have serious constraints on a choice that you deem to be so free.

Having said that, and as others have pointed out, there are also constraints on men in terms of the choices they make, one humorously portrayed by Ben Stiller in Meet the Parents, and here's the point, as Geniasis has said.

Better equality for women ultimately means better equality for men.

I found it interesting that the Collins quote had been PC-ed up to make it not so demeaning.


That dictionary is going to hell. Defining a word according to what the editors think it should mean rather than what it means when people use it ... is "Bowdlerization" the word? It serves more to discredit their dictionary than to change the meaning of the word.

It is from the online, dumbed-down version of Collins though.

Just a little "aussie aussie aussie" note: the Macquarie dictionary gives "dirty slovenly woman" but for a third meaning "a promiscuous man." Yay, we can PC it with the silliest of them!

True, true and for the benefit of Ryadn I found this that defines a stud as one who is virile and promiscuous

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stud

Penis goes in hole. :P There, correction, apologies for generalizating. ;)
Sigworthy.

It's a good question, but the answer won't be found by that sort of abstract market modelling. It will be found by examining individual cases and by solid statistics.

My advice: leave it for tomorrow. You're going to need caffeine :p

Lots. *Scratches head, goes and plays C&C.*

I think alot of the hatred of Feminism comes from the fact that the movement's goals are prettymuch all met, the ones that were fair anyway...Yet the movement hasnt stopped the ideals are still shoved down our throats and we're sick of hearing it...

Inequality in the workplace is almost non existent, because if its even thought of there's a lawsuit involved, hell, nine times outta ten a White Male cant even get a job down here, cause businesses are afraid to turn down a Female or Minority regardless of qualifications...

Yet, we're still told that White Males are horrible people that get all the breaks...I mean im not Racist or Sexist, I think all people and all sexes are equally shitty and have all done shitty things...But, honestly there is a HUGE difference between Equality and Superiority...which is what it feels like these movements want...

I find it depressing that militant feminists seem to take the position that "equality" means taking the worst traits of men and adopting them with impunity as a kind of revenge. That's anything BUT equality.

I find it depressing that militant feminists seem to take the position that "equality" means taking the worst traits of men and adopting them with impunity as a kind of revenge. That's anything BUT equality.

The other problem with any group that is fanatical about equality is that they usually want anything but. Their actual goal, whether intentionally or subconsciously, is an extreme reversal of the roles so they can exact revenge. Of course, not everyone who is for equality on an issue is a fanatic - far from it. But it's the fanatics who get the media time because controversy sells, and in turn has a polarizing effect which makes more controversy. Pick any controversial issue, google it, and you'll see it's true. Moderates get pushed out of the way by fanatics on both ends.

Simply look at trends, take government for example. The first female in government started in 1917. Near 100 years on there's only about 100 women in Congress out of 535.

I love hearing this, "there aren't enough women in government" the fact of the matter is that people are elected into government and voters will vote in who they want to be their representative, to say because there are less women in government than men shows that sexism is alive and well in society. A very defeatist argument and one that may be pushed to try and say more women should be in government, we could put in quotas a certain amount of women to be in government but than that would effectively demolish a sense of democracy and our right to be able to choose who we wish, now that might be a man over a women not because he is a man and she is a women but maybe because more people thought he would be better at representing them and held the same values and beliefs as them. Of course some people may say that it shows sexism and really a woman needs to be voted in but then I think that shows that aren't really equal and need to be helped to be able to get up there without making it on their own.

[/rant] I know this post is just a jumble of toughts which haven't been set out clearly.

I think the real question to the Women in Government is...

How many of those women ran and lost? Honestly with the exception of Hillary Clinton i dont think ive heard of a woman who ran and lost, but she'd already been in the senate and is well on her way to being in a position for whatever she wants short of President...

Its just that they dont run as often...

I find it depressing that militant feminists seem to take the position that "equality" means taking the worst traits of men and adopting them with impunity as a kind of revenge. That's anything BUT equality.

Well I think this is where the two streams of feminism come in, there are those that just want everything to be equal and then their are those that really want the tables turned while still shouting out equality. As these are the ones that really rile up other people because of the obvious hypocrisy than it usually falls to all feminists who get told where to go rather than just the extremists.

Inequality in the workplace is almost non existent, because if its even thought of there's a lawsuit involved, hell, nine times outta ten a White Male cant even get a job down here, cause businesses are afraid to turn down a Female or Minority regardless of qualifications...

So where you live 90% of white men are unemployed? That is shocking.

Not funny. I think I pay more attention to Andaras than you do, and I think you're wrong.

Where the hell did that come from? That was a jab based on his statement that men and women get paid equally for equal amounts of work. Am I wrong on that?

*snip*

It is a little confusing but clear enough to see that you've completely missed the point.

My point was that we think we make clear choices about, for example, either running for government or voting for a representative but we're actually constrained by a multitude of factors based in historical sexist opinion, such as who we see as leaders, both sexes are as guilty.

This was simply to counter the point about 'choosing', placing 'choice' into context rather than thinking we live in a vacuum where pre-formed perceptions do not influence our decisions.

They do, there are still strong pressures in terms of social roles that differ between male and female.

There's plenty of experiments on how our beliefs and prejudices influence our opinions, from the black/white photo identification photos to simpler ones that show how people ignore evidence in making a judgement.

As children we have role models, who goes to work, which jobs are suitable for who and these shape our worldview. It takes a long time for these things to change but we can certainly recognize what needs to be changed and take steps to speed the process.

If there are more female CEOs, more female members of government then it's very likely that more people feel they can take these roles.

I'm not asking for quotas, I'm simply pointing out the disparities to those who act as though everything is utterly equal when it's not, on either side to be honest.

There are those, however, who seem to make up all manner of reasons for pay disparity, job disparity, any disparity and absolve themselves of any part in society.

Often the same people who rail against Paris Hilton for being pampered and famous for nothing, little more than hypocrisy to be honest because according to their views, she has every right to be who she is yet they seem to complain about it so much while saying everyone has to deal with it when it comes to equality.

agreed... feminists some times, if not often, have a poor media image... and not all feminists desrve said image. in consideration though, the image that teh group has helps rally people who support the image to begin with... many people who have joined the feminist circles in recent years (not all) have done so because of the over-hyped media image of angry women who want to be superior to the other gender. Thus, alot of angry women who want to feel superior end up joining the group... its a self sustaining cycle.

Until people are removed of teh desire to look down their long noses at others of their own species, problems like this will continue. it'll be either a philosphy, like feminism, or a religion, or something else. People getting all worked up over things that aren't that big of a deal.

if any of you watch south-park, the options are infact between a shit-sandwhich and a giant douche...

i have no idea which is the lesser of two evils, i like freedom of speach and free media, but combined they lead to these groups that are over-stereotyped and wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal if the media didn't say they were.

*snip*If there are more female CEOs, more female members of government then it's very likely that more people feel they can take these roles.*snip*

Yes I may have not taken in exactly what you were trying to say. In regards to this sentence how exactly would you go about achieving this?

So where you live 90% of white men are unemployed? That is shocking.

Actually, i wasnt saying they were unemployed, just that they were turned down in nine out of ten jobs they applied too...

Read my friend....

I was merely pointing out that its alot EASIER for Women and Minorities to find employment, not that White Guys never found it in the first place...

Actually, i wasnt saying they were unemployed, just that they were turned down in nine out of ten jobs they applied too...

Read my friend....

I was merely pointing out that its alot EASIER for Women and Minorities to find employment, not that White Guys never found it in the first place...

Proof, please.

Proof, please.

Well, let me find all those documented cases...Of course i cant prove it...Do I sound like an Employer to you?

Well, let me find all those documented cases...Of course i cant prove it...Do I sound like an Employer to you?

Does that matter? You've used the point in an argument. I'm asking you to provide some kind of documentation for it. Otherwise it's a stat you're pulling out of your anus.

Well, let me find all those documented cases...Of course i cant prove it...Do I sound like an Employer to you?

Everything has a news article nowadays. And that's not sarcasm.

Yes I may have not taken in exactly what you were trying to say. In regards to this sentence how exactly would you go about achieving this?

Good question - there's a real fine line in terms of laying down the law and taking steps to create equality.

I'd probably be happier with government funded programs that aim to instill a sense of 'I can', and to be honest I'd prefer this across the genders rather than aimed at one. I'd also fairly carefully review education material.

I don't really believe in rupturing society to achieve a cause, unless the cause requires drastic action, there's as much to be lost in creating resentment as there is to be gained by creating opportunity.

To be entirely honest, I don't think most modern democracies are doing too badly and I'd even suggest that it's the nature of democracy to naturally push these changes in society.

I still think there's a long way to go, and I'm only talking about modern democracies here rather than the horrendous conditions experienced by many women in less developed countries.

Other than that, I sit on the Internet debating the subject :)

Actually, i wasnt saying they were unemployed, just that they were turned down in nine out of ten jobs they applied too...

Read my friend....

I was merely pointing out that its alot EASIER for Women and Minorities to find employment, not that White Guys never found it in the first place...

nine times outta ten a White Male cant even get a job down here

I took that to mean that they... you know... couldn't get a job. One who has no job is generally termed "unemployed".

EDIT: I apologize, I didn't notice until now that you live in Mississippi. Being from California myself, I was arguing based on my own experiences in this state, but obviously Mississippi is a far more left-wing state that goes out of its way to provide opportunities for minorities.

Good question - there's a real fine line in terms of laying down the law and taking steps to create equality.

I'd probably be happier with government funded programs that aim to instill a sense of 'I can', and to be honest I'd prefer this across the genders rather than aimed at one. I'd also fairly carefully review education material.

Yes good idea and important for everybody, I do not know about you but during my education days this was something which was done.

I don't really believe in rupturing society to achieve a cause, unless the cause requires drastic action, there's as much to be lost in creating resentment as there is to be gained by creating opportunity.

To be entirely honest, I don't think most modern democracies are doing too badly and I'd even suggest that it's the nature of democracy to naturally push these changes in society.

I still think there's a long way to go, and I'm only talking about modern democracies here rather than the horrendous conditions experienced by many women in less developed countries.

Other than that, I sit on the Internet debating the subject :)

In terms of first world countries in the present day it is going well, and not as bad as it is made out to be, and yes while third world countries don't see what we are saying and should be improved on a whole range of issues not just equality.

Everything has a news article nowadays. And that's not sarcasm.

Everything has a news article nowadays. And that's not sarcasm.

Yeah, but what reporter's gonna commit Career suicide by writing a report like that...

The Mass Media would shoot them...

And, to Ryadn, Sorry, i shouldve worded that better, it was more a rant that anything else...

But, thx for your sarcasm based on where i live, prejudice much? But, your right about the general populace, theyre not all that left wing, but from an Employer Stand Point, i dont want it getting out in the papers that I decided to hire White Guy A, over Female Minority B...the Media is heavily Biased in that regard, and WILL slaughter your place of employment if you take that route...Its the same reason that a Reporter wouldnt write a report on it, the other papers would seize the opportunity to destroy him to lessen the competition...

But, thx for your sarcasm based on where i live, prejudice much? But, your right about the general populace, theyre not all that left wing, but from an Employer Stand Point, i dont want it getting out in the papers that I decided to hire White Guy A, over Female Minority B...the Media is heavily Biased in that regard, and WILL slaughter your place of employment if you take that route...Its the same reason that a Reporter wouldnt right a report on it, the other papers would seize the opportunity to destroy him to lessen the competition...

I can see that, I suppose. And yes, I am biased. I freely admit it, though I'm not proud of it.

Or more generically, Tab A goes into Slot B or C.

...D?
E, even?
Axillism?

...D?
E, even?
Axillism?

I already said D, but never thought about E is that really a slot.

I already said D, but never thought about E is that really a slot.Well, there's always nostrils, and eye sockets for some. And ears. I don't think i'll be posting any links, though.

Yes, but the article also states - in indirect terms - that only women are allowed to be depressed.

Men are s'posed to suck it up.

Eg this paragraph
Men deal with the loss of a loved one differently than women. This may also be related to their belief that men must be strong in the face of adversity. Showing emotion, some men feel, is a sign of weakness. Menf tend to assume full responsibility for their bereavement and suppress their grief. Studies show that this suppression can increase the time it takes to grieve and lead to complications such as escalating anger, aggressiveness, and substance abuse.

May also be, but is not definitive. Could just as easily be the biological difference in how the genders cope with stress.


Are you saying that in your opinion men don't bother doctors less often than women?

You said health and fitness. To me, that means taking care of yourself. Doctors are a part of it, yes, but it also means eating right, exercise and other such pursuits. I've not seen any culture that spurns that.


Nowadays men kill themselves much more often than women in Japan, almost by a ratio of 3:1

If culture of shame and response to shame would be equal between men and women wouldn't you think the numbers would be...well...closer together?


Unless I am mistaken, the leading causes of suicide in Japan today are either related to education stresses and employment issues. Given the strong gender biases in Japan against the employment and acceptance of women in higher ranked positions, it is logical to conclude that there is simply less opportunity for them to achieve an amount of shame to the point where suicide is seen as the way out. i.e. Losing a job as a short term low level worker is less shameful than being laid off after 20 years of faithful service to a company.

Nervun and Dastilla would probably be able to elaborate on this.


Might be, might not be - But wouldn't that still fall under authority abuse rather than gender abuse?

There is no reason to indicate that one would preclude the other.


Imagine that :D


I advocate equality in the application of justice, regardless of position, age or gender.


In 3rd world countries yes.

Thought that does mean that majority of women would be under the boot, so to speak....erm...but say, let's not talk about that as my points have no prevalence there! :p

I have you now.


Let me repeat:
To address the continuing disparities in pay between women and men, we need to raise the minimum wage...

Why would this be necessary if there wasn't more women in lower paying jobs than men? Which would also conversely imply that the women are doing different jobs from men altogether.

Not at all. All it means is that women earning above minimum wage, which is very low to begin with, don't get the same amount of pay as men. Raising the minimum wage simply raises the level of minimum pay. Here, let me elaborate.

Say the minimum wage is $1 an hour. A female clerk earns $1.50 an hour. An equally skilled male clerk earns $2.00 an hour. Raising the minimum wage to $2.00 an hour would mean bringing up the female clerk's pay to an equal amount to the male clerk. Unless of course, the gender bias is so deeply ingrained in the company, that they are willing to reduce their margins just to increase the pay of the male clerk over that of the new minimum wage.

But I think that's really nothing more than petty spite.


Yes, they might argue for it but that doesn't mean the argument had an effect on the case at least in civilized courts.

You see, here's the problem. That they argue using these arguments means that somewhere, in that population, people hold those views. Civilized courts in most cases tend to include a jury, who may hold those views as well. And if they do, then the argument works, and justice is perverted.

Where the hell did that come from? That was a jab based on his statement that men and women get paid equally for equal amounts of work. Am I wrong on that?

Andaras hasn't even posted to this thread. I'm objecting to you using his name as some kind of benchmark of delusion.

If you used my name that way, without sympathy or humour, I'd be taking you to Moderation. As precedent I would cite Fass's successful application not to have his then-name used in joke polls.

Men don't have to take time off work to be pregnant though.

Neither do women.

I was merely pointing out that its alot EASIER for Women and Minorities to find employment, not that White Guys never found it in the first place...

This is simply untrue. See, for example, this (http://papers.nber.org/papers/w9873) famous study.

Neither do women.

Indeed. Maternity leave, if a woman takes it, which not all women do, usually is taken after the baby is born.

Also, men can take paternity leave, as has been pointed out.

Soviestan's 'point' comes from outdated thinking that, at its core, views females simply as baby factories.

May also be, but is not definitive. Could just as easily be the biological difference in how the genders cope with stress.

I would argue for cultural pressure for it is considered a shame to show emotions for a man.

Let's agree to disagree here. :)

You said health and fitness. To me, that means taking care of yourself. Doctors are a part of it, yes, but it also means eating right, exercise and other such pursuits. I've not seen any culture that spurns that.
Well...Eating vegetables, low fat and green products is less manly than eating that sausage and full milk, for example.

Googling found eg these:
http://www.myheraldnews.com/view.html?type=stories&action=detail&sub_id=25490
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/458889.stm
http://www.askmen.com/sports/foodcourt_150/183_eating_well.html

I'd say that exercise is one area where men tend to outdo women but then there's the risk of overdoing it...And then there are the injuries: How many men do you know who's injured themselves while playing sports, what about women?

Unless I am mistaken, the leading causes of suicide in Japan today are either related to education stresses and employment issues. Given the strong gender biases in Japan against the employment and acceptance of women in higher ranked positions, it is logical to conclude that there is simply less opportunity for them to achieve an amount of shame to the point where suicide is seen as the way out. i.e. Losing a job as a short term low level worker is less shameful than being laid off after 20 years of faithful service to a company.
So it is a cultural bias after all! ;)

I have you now.:(

Not at all. All it means is that women earning above minimum wage, which is very low to begin with, don't get the same amount of pay as men. Raising the minimum wage simply raises the level of minimum pay. Here, let me elaborate.

Say the minimum wage is $1 an hour. A female clerk earns $1.50 an hour. An equally skilled male clerk earns $2.00 an hour. Raising the minimum wage to $2.00 an hour would mean bringing up the female clerk's pay to an equal amount to the male clerk. Unless of course, the gender bias is so deeply ingrained in the company, that they are willing to reduce their margins just to increase the pay of the male clerk over that of the new minimum wage.

But I think that's really nothing more than petty spite.
That's pure speculation - And I don't see how it would remove the gender bias.

However, I wish they did more studies, especially within a large chain which would be bound to have similar wages across the board: Saying woman's <monetary unit> is 70 <smaller monetary units> (eg. dollars/euros & cents) is counterproductive.

For example, wages of McDonalds employees correlated with gender, work experience, work hours and efficiency (customer satisfaction, customers/hour, breaks, etc..).

You see, here's the problem. That they argue using these arguments means that somewhere, in that population, people hold those views. Civilized courts in most cases tend to include a jury, who may hold those views as well. And if they do, then the argument works, and justice is perverted.
Well, there's no jury here where I live so a trial by popularity has very little meaning here.

You're right though that in case the jury is selected from peers and not carefully screened such grave errors could theoretically happen.

Check your facts (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/paygapgrows.htm), kiddo.
Median FT women's earnings against Median FT men's. Does not show anything about whether women get paid less for the same jobs. Doesn't take into account the effects of past biases on the modern statistics.


No and men don't waste their time on maternity leave, they may however waste their time on paternity leave. If they are able to get paternity leave something which is not always a guarantee but hey why should they be allowed time off work with pay to look after their kids.

Again, because all women spend their time popping out kid(s), apparently by parthenogenesis, seeing as men apparently don't reproduce at all. Have you heard the term "father"? It refers to a man who actually has children. Sometimes these strange and mythical beings also take time off work to take care of their children! You might also have heard of similar mythical beings called "women who aren't mothers," who generally spend very little time being pregnant. I know these are really tricky concepts to understand, but please try.

And maternity leave is (with a few exceptions) longer and better paid than paternity leave. If you make it financially beneficial for companies to discriminate based on sex then don't be surprised if they do.

Unless I am mistaken, the leading causes of suicide in Japan today are either related to education stresses and employment issues. Given the strong gender biases in Japan against the employment and acceptance of women in higher ranked positions, it is logical to conclude that there is simply less opportunity for them to achieve an amount of shame to the point where suicide is seen as the way out. i.e. Losing a job as a short term low level worker is less shameful than being laid off after 20 years of faithful service to a company.

Nervun and Dastilla would probably be able to elaborate on this.
As Daistallia noted previously, the whole suicide rate in Japan is rather over blown, though I can tell you that no, educational pressures have very little to do with it. Japan's teen rate, while high, doesn't show a correlation with educational pressures (Bulling however is a different matter).

In this case though, my suspicion is on the support group for each. Mental illness is a taboo subject among the Japanese and there is very little professional help available for those in need (and is considered to be shameful to seek it). However, women tend to have stronger support groups to blow off steam with and to help each other when the going gets tough. Men, however, are supposed to be, well, manly (My son, who is 9 months old, is already being told by my wife and his grandmother that boys shouldn't cry). Without the ability to feel that someone understands and cares for you, or release the pressure inside, it's much easier to slip into that hopeless state that makes suicide look like the only way out.

You must have an odd view of men if you're equating looking sexy ---> getting raped with hand in toaster ----> hurting yourself.

What of women who just happen to be beautiful? Should they refrain from make up in case they tempt men into an uncontrollable sexual fury? Should they cover their hair? Their eyes?

^ This

If feminism = women are capable human beings just like men, then hating feminism does indeed = hating women.

If SL is right, then liking feminism = hating women. :p

In terms of first world countries in the present day it is going well, and not as bad as it is made out to be, and yes while third world countries don't see what we are saying and should be improved on a whole range of issues not just equality.
I'm writing in response to you only to give a context to the following remarks as being in response to something. I actually want to address my remarks to everyone in the thread, however. They are prompted by the comments of several other posters as well.

One of the problems I have with people -- like some others in this thread -- who claim that feminism is over and done with but just won't shut up, and that's why it causes problems, is that they forget that not everyone lives in the prosperous, forward-thinking "first world."

Yes, it is true, that the so-called first world (I have personal issues with those designations, and anyway I think they may soon be changing) has made tremendous progress in social equality over the past 30 years, built on the solid foundation of the work of social reformers in the 70 years prior to the 1970s. The feminist movement was a major component in raising public consciousness of social inequality, hand in hand with other social interest groups. Together, feminist and civil rights activist groups, by focusing on the highly visible issues of inequality of gender and race, succeeded in raising public awareness of and questioning of all forms of social inequality, including discrimination by economic class, ethnic origin, physical disability, religious affiliation, and sexual orientation.

As far as the specific concerns of feminism -- gender equality -- most affluent, industrialized, urbanized nations in the 21st century see far less difference between the genders in education, wages, hiring and promotion practices, and protection of the law than they did as recently as the 1980s. But differences still DO exist in first world nations, regardless of what some people here may like to claim, and in some instances, those differences are still the result of active discrimination. In countries like the US, UK and others, we may no longer need to apply broad social pressure, and can instead focus on case-by-case addressing of apparent imbalances, but that does not mean there are no issues to address.

And as for the broader concerns of feminism -- social equality in general -- there is still much to do in the first world. Having accomplished so much for women, I, as a feminist, believe we have a moral duty to look beyond ourselves and keep pushing on behalf of gays, the poor, ethnic minorities, and others who are still struggling in many first world nations.

Also, and even more pressingly, this does not even address the situations faced by women in many parts of the so-called third world, where poverty, cultural traditions, and active social and government programs of inequality create conditions of extreme suffering and oppression. As long as there are places in this world where women cannot get equal protection of the law, where women can legally be treated like property, where women cannot travel freely or control their own lives, where women cannot gain access to education or medical care, then feminism not only has work to do, it has a duty to do that work. I, as a woman privileged to have been born in the feminism-influenced United States, cannot bring myself to sit back complacently on the victories won by the women before me while millions of women, and children and men, suffer in other places.

I am sick and tired of hearing -- as I have from some of the other people in this thread, as well as elsewhere -- that feminism is over and we girls should just pipe down since we've already gotten our way. I look at the world around me, and at all the people in it, and to me, the claim that the goals of feminism have already been accomplished so we don't need it anymore sounds like the most short-sighted, provincial "I've got mine so everything's hunky-dory" claptrap imaginable.

Yes, it is true, that the so-called first world (I have personal issues with those designations, and anyway I think they may soon be changing) has made tremendous progress in social equality over the past 30 years, built on the solid foundation of the work of social reformers in the 70 years prior to the 1970s.

Funny, the level of popular public appearance of people like Gloria Steinem here in the US is essentially at zero, as is the level of popular public appearance of any woman who supposedly speaks on issues of feminism.

If anything, things are going rapidly backwards, or maybe sideways.

Female public role models are supposedly Britney Spears, Amy Winehouse, and Paris Hilton, who get a lot of publicity for acting like immature, easily manipulated skanks. A lot of young women idolize them as fiercely independent women who are doing whatever the fuck they want to do.

Instead of idolizing the woman who wants a great education, the woman who becomes a person in a position of political power, or the woman who is a competent business professional, the idols are cheap meth-smoking whores who are being manipulated by the asshole men in their lives.

Funny, the level of popular public appearance of people like Gloria Steinem here in the US is essentially at zero, as is the level of popular public appearance of any woman who supposedly speaks on issues of feminism.

If anything, things are going rapidly backwards, or maybe sideways.

Female public role models are supposedly Britney Spears, Amy Winehouse, and Paris Hilton, who get a lot of publicity for acting like immature, easily manipulated skanks. A lot of young women idolize them as fiercely independent women who are doing whatever the fuck they want to do.

Instead of idolizing the woman who wants a great education, the woman who becomes a person in a position of political power, or the woman who is a competent business professional, the idols are cheap meth-smoking whores who are being manipulated by the asshole men in their lives.
Although it makes me feel queasy to agree with you on anything, what you say here is absolutely true.

I don't know how old you may be, but I grew up in the 1960s/1970s and have been in the work force since the 1980s. I was not only there to see but also personally experienced the improvements accomplished in the social condition of women in the US during that time.

I have also been shocked at the recent backlashes against feminism and at recent social trends (though I desperately hope they will turn out to be fads rather than trends) towards the kind of re-bimbo-fication of American women you talk about. When I see the new popular media images of women and how many young women and girls today think of themselves, and put that together with social and political pressure against equal rights legislation and attacks on legal protections for women's reproductive rights, I have to tell you, it scares me. It really does.

Things are still better now in the US than they were in the 1970s. Believe me, they are. But yeah, even in my own country, I have no intention of resting on feminism's past laurels. Not even a little. Those fights may have been won. Tomorrow will bring fights of its own.

Although it makes me feel queasy to agree with you on anything, what you say here is absolutely true.

I don't know how old you may be, but I grew up in the 1960s/1970s and have been in the work force since the 1980s. I was not only there to see but also personally experienced the improvements accomplished in the social condition of women in the US during that time.

I have also been shocked at the recent backlashes against feminism and at recent social trends (though I desperately hope they will turn out to be fads rather than trends) towards the kind of re-bimbo-fication of American women you talk about. When I see the new popular media images of women and how many young women and girls today think of themselves, and put that together with social and political pressure against equal rights legislation and attacks on legal protections for women's reproductive rights, I have to tell you, it scares me. It really does.

Things are still better now in the US than they were in the 1970s. Believe me, they are. But yeah, even in my own country, I have no intention of resting on feminism's past laurels. Not even a little. Those fights may have been won. Tomorrow will bring fights of its own.


We're about the same age. I grew up in the age when my mother burned her bra. I call her generation the "Lost" generation, because they were raised to believe that they should become housewives and mothers, then told to fuck all that, then in the 1980s when their kids were grown, the world came back to "you should be a soccer mom", which just twisted their heads around.

Now we're going around selling Bratz dolls to young girls, the youngest Spears girl is barefoot and pregnant at 16, her older sister is a meth freak manipulated by her male agent, and not one famous woman who has done the education/career/politics thing has a positive public spin going - hell, they'll sping Amy Winehouse as a great gal who's going places, even if it's straight into the fucking ditch.

You might wonder why I'm worried - I have several daughters.

I actually do believe feminism is over-done, even though, yes, I agree women are lacking some rights they deserve. The problem is with feminists is they go overboard and are trying to put women in the position of power men have been in for many years. What you have to understand is by giving women the rights they deserve, they're also taking away privileges of men. It's kind of like the anti-racist things going on -- If you're applying for a job in Canada as a white man, you may be much more qualified than a middle eastern man, but he gets the job because the companies are required to have a certain amount of foreign workers, disabled workers, etc. This, in effect, is backwards discrimination. The same thing is happening with anti-sexism, with a women quota applied too.

Also, men and women aren't naturally equal. I think we can all agree women and men are CLEARLY different. Some jobs are better suited for men, some jobs are better suited for women. Although, yes, there are exceptions quite often where a man may be better in a woman's job, and a woman may be better in a man's job. Really you shouldn't be paying attention to race, sex, whatever, at all. What you should be paying attention to is a person's personality and such. With the celebrity poll you had on the first post -- Sure, there were significantly more women in the hated poll, but who cares? It's a coincidence. People voted on who they liked and disliked. The key, people, to equality is not to make women and men perfectly equal, it's to ignore the fact that someone is a woman or man, black or white, orange or purple.

It's really simple - if you push something too hard, you're going to get pushed back. Thats the way humans react to each other. If something is radical, the idea has to be slowly introduced over time or it will just burn as controversy and get nowhere. The only reason why any of the radical crap gets anywhere in the US is because of the courts legislating from the bench.

Why do we hate women?

It's the boob's all men hate boob's!

We're about the same age. I grew up in the age when my mother burned her bra. I call her generation the "Lost" generation, because they were raised to believe that they should become housewives and mothers, then told to fuck all that, then in the 1980s when their kids were grown, the world came back to "you should be a soccer mom", which just twisted their heads around.

Now we're going around selling Bratz dolls to young girls, the youngest Spears girl is barefoot and pregnant at 16, her older sister is a meth freak manipulated by her male agent, and not one famous woman who has done the education/career/politics thing has a positive public spin going - hell, they'll sping Amy Winehouse as a great gal who's going places, even if it's straight into the fucking ditch.

You might wonder why I'm worried - I have several daughters.
Well, it sounds like there will still be speeches to be made, marches to be marched, and undergarments to be burned, possibly for a long time to come. I look forward to seeing you and your daughters on the ramparts. "Shoulder to shoulder." :)

It's really simple - if you push something too hard, you're going to get pushed back. Thats the way humans react to each other. If something is radical, the idea has to be slowly introduced over time or it will just burn as controversy and get nowhere. The only reason why any of the radical crap gets anywhere in the US is because of the courts legislating from the bench.
I'm going to print this out, frame it, and hang it over my desk as a reminder of why we must never let ourselves get complacent.

Well, it sounds like there will still be speeches to be made, marches to be marched, and undergarments to be burned, possibly for a long time to come. I look forward to seeing you and your daughters on the ramparts. "Shoulder to shoulder." :)

Regardless of my political views on other subjects, you'll find that I'm all in favor of anything that keeps my daughters from being used, and in favor of anything that lets them succeed in society as well as anyone else without having to peddle their bodies.

It becomes very real, if you're a man who has daughters. It becomes especially real the first time you see some guy ogle your teenage daughter.

If I was a woman, I would be royally pissed off 24/7, just from being visually undressed everywhere I went.

I have also been shocked at the recent backlashes against feminism and at recent social trends (though I desperately hope they will turn out to be fads rather than trends) towards the kind of re-bimbo-fication of American women you talk about. When I see the new popular media images of women and how many young women and girls today think of themselves, and put that together with social and political pressure against equal rights legislation and attacks on legal protections for women's reproductive rights, I have to tell you, it scares me. It really does.

Why the double standards here, take a look at the language...

Female public role models are supposedly Britney Spears, Amy Winehouse, and Paris Hilton, who get a lot of publicity for acting like immature, easily manipulated skanks. A lot of young women idolize them as fiercely independent women who are doing whatever the fuck they want to do.

Instead of idolizing the woman who wants a great education, the woman who becomes a person in a position of political power, or the woman who is a competent business professional, the idols are cheap meth-smoking whores who are being manipulated by the asshole men in their lives.

Look at the terminology and then think of all the men who took drugs, slept with a lot of women and were also manipulated by agents and consider how society describes them - anti-heros, rebels etc.,

Why was Johnny Rotten given cult status whereas Amy Winehouse, who has far greater talent, is called a 'cheap meth-smoking whore'?

Why do women need to be such role models, why are media allowed to point at the women who drink and fuck around and call it a disgrace to society when men have been doing it for centuries?

The true inequality.

Why do we hate women?

It's the boob's all men hate boob's!

Well, I wouldn't say all men do. But roughly 10% of us hates boobs, yeah.

Well, I wouldn't say all men do. But roughly 10% of us hates boobs, yeah.

Nope all of us, if, for example, all women where to walk around topless, that would totaly freak us all out, and we wouldn't like to see it. No sir not at all.

Nope all of us, if, for example, all women where to walk around topless, that would totaly freak us all out, and we wouldn't like to see it. No sir not at all.

Boobs are like hallucinogenic drugs. Mind-altering, pleasing to the senses, and quite fantastic in small or moderate amounts. When you have too much, they leave you curled up and terrified. Truly, there are some people in this increasingly obese society who should have their assets regulated and contained.

I'm a little perplexed by that post myself, to be honest.

On more sober reflection, of course the similarities between men and women outweigh the differences (people of both varieties love and hate, as you put it.)

It wasn't that it was perplexing, it's just that I have pondered the same issue several times without being able to express it into coherent words. You, on the other hand, sober or not, did express it kind of coherently.

Hmm. Rationality is more a capacity than the everyday conduct of most of us, I would say. We can be rational when we have to, but being irrational is ... more fun?

Yes, irrationality is way funner than rationality. The problem would strive in the guilt as an after-effect of that fun irrationality. I suffer from that malady. It's a nuisance.

The perception that women are more irrational ("changing her mind is a woman's prerogative") I think comes from the fact that their moods can change for hormonal reasons, in a space of days. Same person, different thinking (though of course with the ability to be rational when necessary).

But I would say men are just as "moody" and prone to indulge themselves in irrationality. It's like a "male mood" which goes unnoticed because it is more constant. It's a aggressive, arrogant and selfish ... but it can be factored out when a man is aware of it.

I read somewhere, and if you laugh at the ridiculousness of it, go ahead, that men do go through a kind of "male menopause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andropause)". This affects them as hard as menopause affects women. In moodiness, we're unjustified and not too different.

There is also the fact that human brains develop differently in the two sexes, but I'm abandoning that line of thinking because I think the human mind is flexible enough to bridge that gap. Today, the presence of sex hormones and their effect on mood seems to me more significant in dividing us.

Neither a man nor a woman is fully human by themselves. The "human viewpoint" needs to be synthesized for each, which might even be why rationality takes effort.

That's why pointed out that we're capable of committing the worst, acts that lack or seem to denote an uncapability to reason. Of course, we're animals, not completely human and not completely irrational, although thinking ones according to science and such.

Upon thinking a bit about your post, I understood something about the death that can be gleamed from gender difference. Perhaps tried and common; breast cancer, uterine cancer, cervical cancer, for example, death, it's dictated by a specific sex condition. This is a condition that only affects women.

Of course, this is just a trivial example and under no circumstance does it encompass half of what I think you were trying to convey.

As to our courses in life, opportunities and ways of competing -- these are social matters and I absolutely approve of the doubling of available talent in all fields. I feel lucky to live in a world changed by feminism, because its a better world than the old patriarchal one, even if it harder for me to get a good job or social status when I have to compete with women as well as men. It's worth it to live in a great society.

Yes, annoying to a degree, but fair. I wouldn't have it any other way.

It wasn't that it was perplexing, it's just that I have pondered the same issue several times without being able to express it into coherent words. You, on the other hand, sober or not, did express it kind of coherently.*snip*

I'm going to take this as a very pleasant "good night" and actually ... finally ... go to bed.

I want to reply, but I'm just too whacked.

I'll be on tomorrow. Approximately 14 hours from now.

*stands up, trips self over, and drags self out of study by one leg*

Andaras hasn't even posted to this thread. I'm objecting to you using his name as some kind of benchmark of delusion.

If you used my name that way, without sympathy or humour, I'd be taking you to Moderation. As precedent I would cite Fass's successful application not to have his then-name used in joke polls.

Well there you go. The half-kidding tone of that post may not have been apparent, but it was there.

Why the double standards here, take a look at the language...



Look at the terminology and then think of all the men who took drugs, slept with a lot of women and were also manipulated by agents and consider how society describes them - anti-heros, rebels etc.,

Why was Johnny Rotten given cult status whereas Amy Winehouse, who has far greater talent, is called a 'cheap meth-smoking whore'?

Why do women need to be such role models, why are media allowed to point at the women who drink and fuck around and call it a disgrace to society when men have been doing it for centuries?

The true inequality.
This is also true.

I'll go on record right now as saying that if any human being, male or female, wants to jump right into any handy handbasket and carry themselves through the express aisle to hell, I will respect their absolute right to do whatever they want with their own lives. And I, for one, will never refer to Amy Winehouse as a "cheap meth-smoking whore" (allegedly!! *nod to Kathy Griffin*) while not describing Johnny Rotten (and others) with similar appropriate language for whatever dumbass self-destructive shit they do.

That said, what I really find scary nowadays is not the freak-show lust of the modern gossip audience, but rather the seeming willingness of common, everyday young women and men to buy into social roles that define them in negative ways -- as sex-things, or addicts, or wage slaves, or debtors, or uninformed puppets of media and pols, or demographics in a marketing scheme -- but which have nothing to do with them as human beings, that don't express them as individuals, and that, if you ask them about it, seem to mean nothing to them personally. And while they pretend to want to be like, or even give a shit about, whoever the celebrity flavor of the moment is, they stand by and do nothing -- and even sometimes refuse to do anything, even vote -- as their liberties and rights are chipped and nibbled away. And when someone tries to rally them by telling them how much they stand to lose, how bad it was before, they shrug and say, "hey, it's not the 80s anymore," as if we're talking about ancient frigging Egypt. I don't understand it at all. I often look around me and comment that Americans don't make any sense to me anymore.

EDIT: By the way, I know that neither Amy Winehouse nor Johnny Rotten is American, but hey, Paris Hilton and that Federline dude are, and so are all the sad, hopeless young losers barrelling headlong back to the 1950/60s that I have to live with and deal with every day.

Wait people are pigs for saying that women are partially responsible when wearing revealing clothing?! The whole point of wearing revealing and sexy clothes is to show off your sex appeal. They're basically saying, "hey guys I want you all to think I'm hot and desire to have sex with me" then when some sick bastard decides to listen to this desire they say they had nothing to do with it? It's like someone sticking their hand in a toaster then suing the company that made the toaster for burning his hand.OMG. I hope you die a virgin. So the only women who really don't want to be raped are wearing head to toe burkas?

If a jewelry store exhibits its ware in the window it wants you to pull a smash and grab.:rolleyes:

I dress sexy. I do want to get laid. Just not by you. By wearing sexy clothes I hope to attract the attention of a male I consider suitable. That doesn't mean I lose the right to say "no" to males I don't consider suitable. You can window shop all you want. But I decide who gets the goods. Understand?

Regardless of my political views on other subjects, you'll find that I'm all in favor of anything that keeps my daughters from being used, and in favor of anything that lets them succeed in society as well as anyone else without having to peddle their bodies.

It becomes very real, if you're a man who has daughters. It becomes especially real the first time you see some guy ogle your teenage daughter.

If I was a woman, I would be royally pissed off 24/7, just from being visually undressed everywhere I went.

The candle for abu al-Banat burns all night.

Why the double standards here, take a look at the language...



Look at the terminology and then think of all the men who took drugs, slept with a lot of women and were also manipulated by agents and consider how society describes them - anti-heros, rebels etc.,

Why was Johnny Rotten given cult status whereas Amy Winehouse, who has far greater talent, is called a 'cheap meth-smoking whore'?

Why do women need to be such role models, why are media allowed to point at the women who drink and fuck around and call it a disgrace to society when men have been doing it for centuries?

The true inequality.

Fine questions, all. That particular double standard is deeply ingrained into many cultures. It comes from the perceived value of a virginal woman to a family/clan/household/what-have-you. As if a woman's worth is somehow diminished in the absence of a hymen. I've never understood that, and never will -- not in the 21st century.

OMG. I hope you die a virgin. So the only women who really don't want to be raped are wearing head to toe burkas?

If a jewelry store exhibits its ware in the window it wants you to pull a smash and grab.:rolleyes:

I dress sexy. I do want to get laid. Just not by you. By wearing sexy clothes I hope to attract the attention of a male I consider suitable. That doesn't mean I lose the right to say "no" to males I don't consider suitable. You can window shop all you want. But I decide who gets the goods. Understand?

He probably doesn't, if he was serious at all about the post you quoted.

Though please allow me to say that I would consider myself among the worlds most fortunate souls were I ever allowed to "get the goods" -- I don't care what you look like, BK, your presence and personality here are plenty alluring.

He's got a scintilla of a point in that it's hypocritical for a woman to dress provocatively and then complain about the stares. I was once caught admiring the decolletage of a woman while waiting to cross a downtown Seattle street on one evening of fun in Pioneer Square. She looked at me with incredulity and sneered "what the fuck are YOU lookin' at?"

For the only time in my life, my wit was up to the task in the required amount of time. I drew my eyes slowly up to hers and said, calmly, "your breasts. They are magnificent," and walked away. I didn't hear any epithets chase me down Yesler Way, so I figured the answer must have ben acceptable.

Fine questions, all. That particular double standard is deeply ingrained into many cultures. It comes from the perceived value of a virginal woman to a family/clan/household/what-have-you. As if a woman's worth is somehow diminished in the absence of a hymen. I've never understood that, and never will -- not in the 21st century.



He probably doesn't, if he was serious at all about the post you quoted.

Though please allow me to say that I would consider myself among the worlds most fortunate souls were I ever allowed to "get the goods" -- I don't care what you look like, BK, your presence and personality here are plenty alluring.

He's got a scintilla of a point in that it's hypocritical for a woman to dress provocatively and then complain about the stares. I was once caught admiring the decolletage of a woman while waiting to cross a downtown Seattle street on one evening of fun in Pioneer Square. She looked at me with incredulity and sneered "what the fuck are YOU lookin' at?"

For the only time in my life, my wit was up to the task in the required amount of time. I drew my eyes slowly up to hers and said, calmly, "your breasts. They are magnificent," and walked away. I didn't hear any epithets chase me down Yesler Way, so I figured the answer must have ben acceptable.

FINALLY SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS THE MESSAGE I ATTEMPTED TO CONVEY! I'm giving you a cookie, your the only one who actually got what I was saying ans didn't scream "oh noez itz tah ebil raepist m0s1im dude"

OMG. I hope you die a virgin. So the only women who really don't want to be raped are wearing head to toe burkas?

If a jewelry store exhibits its ware in the window it wants you to pull a smash and grab.:rolleyes:

I dress sexy. I do want to get laid. Just not by you. By wearing sexy clothes I hope to attract the attention of a male I consider suitable. That doesn't mean I lose the right to say "no" to males I don't consider suitable. You can window shop all you want. But I decide who gets the goods. Understand?

You have just demonstrated that you are either as hateful and biased or utterly blind and ignorant as the majority of the posters in this thread. I hope phychology eventually evolves to the point where if can cure people like you of their aspieness.

FINALLY SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS THE MESSAGE I ATTEMPTED TO CONVEY! I'm giving you a cookie, your the only one who actually got what I was saying ans didn't scream "oh noez itz tah ebil raepist m0s1im dude"

People "understood" the message once you SHIFTED IT.

You have just demonstrated that you are either as hateful and biased or utterly blind and ignorant as the majority of the posters in this thread. I hope phychology eventually evolves to the point where if can cure people like you of their aspieness.

Well, you made a claim, you then changed it when it sounded unpopular. Your point?

people "understood" The Message Once You Shifted It.

I Demand That All Of You Stop Acting Like Aspies At Once! You Knew What I Meant From The Begining!

FINALLY SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS THE MESSAGE I ATTEMPTED TO CONVEY! I'm giving you a cookie, your the only one who actually got what I was saying ans didn't scream "oh noez itz tah ebil raepist m0s1im dude"
Except Intangelon noted about STARING. Now, you might not know this, but staring is very, very, different from RAPING!

Let's agree to disagree here. :)


Nevah! *fights to the bitter end*

:p


Well...Eating vegetables, low fat and green products is less manly than eating that sausage and full milk, for example.

Googling found eg these:
http://www.myheraldnews.com/view.html?type=stories&action=detail&sub_id=25490
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/458889.stm
http://www.askmen.com/sports/foodcourt_150/183_eating_well.html


Some of your sources only talk about men, and don't provide any comparative figures for women. But is dietary habits tied to gender/cultural biases? Or is it simply a question of priorities? I notice some of the articles you mentioned talked about women doing this for appearances sake.


I'd say that exercise is one area where men tend to outdo women but then there's the risk of overdoing it...And then there are the injuries: How many men do you know who's injured themselves while playing sports, what about women?

When you post comparative statistics, I'll know. :p


So it is a cultural bias after all! ;)


Oh really? If a gender bias hangs around long enough, it becomes part of the cultural bias, but they aren't mutually exclusive you know.


That's pure speculation - And I don't see how it would remove the gender bias.

By making the continuation of that gender bias too expensive to stomach?


However, I wish they did more studies, especially within a large chain which would be bound to have similar wages across the board:


Well, until there are, we're limited to this type of argument.


Well, there's no jury here where I live so a trial by popularity has very little meaning here.

You're right though that in case the jury is selected from peers and not carefully screened such grave errors could theoretically happen.

They're not "theoretical" since they do happen. There's no jury here either, but I wouldn't trust the judges here to be fair and unbiased anymore than I could throw them, the court, and the courthouse.

He's got a scintilla of a point in that it's hypocritical for a woman to dress provocatively and then complain about the stares. I was once caught admiring the decolletage of a woman while waiting to cross a downtown Seattle street on one evening of fun in Pioneer Square. She looked at me with incredulity and sneered "what the fuck are YOU lookin' at?"

For the only time in my life, my wit was up to the task in the required amount of time. I drew my eyes slowly up to hers and said, calmly, "your breasts. They are magnificent," and walked away. I didn't hear any epithets chase me down Yesler Way, so I figured the answer must have ben acceptable.

A slight tweak - I don't think it's at all hypocritical to complain about staring, but one can make a reasonable case for hypocrisy if a woman dresses provocatively and objects to people looking. Staring is just rather rude and creepy regardless of what someone's wearing.

Nevah! *fights to the bitter end*

So you disagree to disagree? :confused:

Well, you made a claim, you then changed it when it sounded unpopular. Your point?

When did I do that? I never did anything of the sort. You people are lower than I thought if you truly can put words into others mouths and falsely accuse without regret. How'd you like it if you posted a thread on how you hate Christians (not saying youm just using this as an example) and then I posted in response that you are a satanist who sacrifices babies? You'd be pretty pissed wouldn't you.

Intangelon clarified the reasoning behind my opinion nicely.

I Demand That All Of You Stop Acting Like Aspies At Once! You Knew What I Meant From The Begining!
In the Beginning was the Message. Unfortunately, the Messenger assumed that everyone he gave the Message to was telepathic and able to understand the true Meaning behind the Message when he said something else completely different. Thus was a 30+ page thread born complete with Outrage, Drama, and Sarcasm. The Messenger became wroth and threw a Hissy fit. Then demanded the Messenger, "Thou all knowest what I mean! Stop it!". Alas, no one believed the Messenger because of confusion over the meaning of his new Message. Did it mean continue? Did it mean that we didn't know what he meant? No one knew and there was much confusion.

How'd you like it if you posted a thread on how you hate Christians (not saying youm just using this as an example) and then I posted in response that you are a satanist who sacrifices babies? You'd be pretty pissed wouldn't you.

I really don't think that he would.

I Demand That All Of You Stop Acting Like Aspies At Once! You Knew What I Meant From The Begining!

Gosh, you poor thing, having people assume that when you said...

Whats disgusting is the fact that some woman will wear clothing thats meant to cause attractions from the other sex and when some git gets attracted then sexually assaults her she gets no blame.

...what you meant was...

Whats disgusting is the fact that some woman will wear clothing thats meant to cause attractions from the other sex and when some git gets attracted then sexually assaults her she gets no blame.

We are so mean like that!

Gosh, you poor thing, having people assume that when you said...



...what you meant was...



We are so mean like that!

2) Rapist gets punished victim gets less sympathy.

3) When a woman chooses to dress like a whore and walk around town then gets attacked she is not to be held accountable for her actions? She engaged in an unsafe activity, anyone who engages in unsafe activities usually are held accountable. And I'm not saying the rapist is not accountable, both are sentient beings with free will and if you deny that I knew that from the start I'd laugh myself blue in the face I honestly would.

I really don't think that he would.

Alright but if some anti-Christian did and I posted that about him he'd still get pretty pissed. Once again you missed my point.

Alright but if some anti-Christian did and I posted that about him he'd still get pretty pissed. Once again you missed my point.

Do you still say that part of the blame is the victim's in rape cases?

If so, that's fucking ALL I NEED TO KNOW about you.

Alright but if some anti-Christian did and I posted that about him he'd still get pretty pissed. Once again you missed my point.

I guess I just don't think anyone calling people Satanist baby-eaters would get taken very seriously.

2) Rapist gets punished victim gets less sympathy.

Again, I ask you, if you really believe this - have the guts to tell me, personally, that I deserve "less sympathy" for being sexually assaulted because I had certainly tried to attract the guy who assaulted me, given that he was my boyfriend. Tell ME, personally, that the fact that he'd seen me naked meant he couldn't help himself and that I should be held partially accountable for his behavior. If that's what you really believe, surely you won't mind saying it to someone who's been assaulted, right?

3) When a woman chooses to dress like a whore

So, like this, then:

http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2005/11/23/photos/fleiss.jpg

?

Interesting choice of words, by the way. It really lends a ton of credibility to the idea that you're not just imposing your arbitrary standards on women and declaring certain of them "bad" and deserving of abuse and assault. :rolleyes:

and walk around town then gets attacked she is not to be held accountable for her actions?

Of course she should be held accountable for her actions. "Getting raped" is not an action, however. But you can totally hold her accountable for "walking around town." Of course, given the complete lack of moral or legal ramifications to walking around town, that doesn't mean a damn thing.

She engaged in an unsafe activity, anyone who engages in unsafe activities usually are held accountable.

....yeah, people who drive cars all deserve to get in accidents! Those bitches!

And I'm not saying the rapist is not accountable, both are sentient beings with free will and if you deny that I knew that from the start I'd laugh myself blue in the face I honestly would.

Really? Because a few pages back, you declared men to be analogous to dogs and toasters, neither of which are sentient beings with free will. I'm glad you've decided to upgrade them to being at least partially responsible for their own behavior. How enlightened of you.

I Demand That All Of You Stop Acting Like Aspies At Once! You Knew What I Meant From The Begining!
Yes, we did all know exactly what you meant from the beginning, but thank you for repeating it on this page so newcomers don't have to go all the way back there to see what we've been talking about.

I guess I just don't think anyone calling people Satanist baby-eaters would get taken very seriously.
I'd laugh. Then I'd want to order the t-shirt. :)

When a woman chooses to dress like a whore and walk around town then gets attacked she is not to be held accountable for her actions?

No. People dress like they want and aren't held accountable. You're claiming getting raped is some sort of accountability and you HAVE YET TO ANSWER THE POINTS I MADE, WHICH I WILL REPOST IF I SEE FIT!

The blame for a rape is only the rapist's. PERIOD. FINITO. END OF DISCUSSION. SHUT-UP-AND-GET-OFF-MY-LAWN MOMENT.

Do you still say that part of the blame is the victim's in rape cases?

If so, that's fucking ALL I NEED TO KNOW about you.

There you are twisting my words again. It should be obvious that blame is circumstantial, always was and always is. You make it sound like I was saying that it is ALWAYS the ALL the victims fault. You couldn't be more incorrect which is why you begin to amuse me. The fallacies you spout out about me grow more hilarious with each post and so does the forum's blindness to obvious facts.

The blame only goes on the victim AS WELL AS THE perpetrator if the victim too is to blame, which would be in cases where the victim in some way encourages the perpetrator. In other cases where the victim doesn't encourage and attack the rapist is purely to blame. You didn't seriously believe that what I meant was that in 100% of the time its is the victim's fault as well as the rapists?

PERIOD. FINITO. END OF DISCUSSION. SHUT-UP-AND-GET-OFF-MY-LAWN MOMENT.

Wait, this thread is your lawn? But that means… it's a block party!



Lame. Where are the drinks?

When a woman chooses to dress like a whore and walk around town then gets attacked she is not to be held accountable for her actions?

Yes. She should be held accountable for being dressed as a whore. Just like another woman might be held accountable for dressing like a nun. And just like straight men must be held accountable when they dress like tasteless, penniless hobos.

Which is to say, she must be ready to be stared at, and possibly pointed at and derided.



She engaged in an unsafe activity
No.

Dressing like a whore is stupid and reeks of poor taste. It is not, however, unsafe.

You fail at putting blame of a crime on the victims who suffer from the disgusting actions of others.

I told you I'd be back to entertain the people here.

At your expense.

Since you seem to have made no attempts to recant yourself from what you said - which boils down to "part of the blame is on the woman if she dresses in a way men find enticing" - I'll play with you a bit.

You try to make a case that men are creatures of instinct, that can't control themselves. In fact, that's at the very core of your attempted argument.

So, let's examine that premise - a premise you use out of a need to have SOMETHING to blame women with, or, in short, as an excuse - more closely, shall we?

Your appeal to instinct, argumentum ad instinctum if you will, isn't supported by the fact that we have several technologies - bungee jumping, skydiving, airplanes - and developed several concepts - abstinence, castration, celibacy, vegetarianism - that run counter to the "instincts" you claim that govern us. If instincts ruled us that much, would we have these things? If so, why?

Secondly, you don't seem to be using argumentum ad instinctum to make the case that if a handyman is killed for entering someone's house - their territory, which they didn't delimitate with urine but still - that person is just giving in to their territorial instincts. You don't seem to be using argumentum ad instinctum to make the case that we all should live in a natural society, in which money is not a concept, like monkeys do. You don't seem to want to use argumentum ad instinctum to make any case other than "it's partially their fault if someone rapes them", which has ramifications such as "let's reduce the rapist's jail time, or allow him parole, depending on how his defense attorney makes the case that she was wearing/behaving like a slut".

You use argumentum ad instinctum to make a case of a notion you already hold - and it's not a reasonable notion by any measure, it's just the "that bitch deserved it" notion. People like you is why some defense attorneys in rape cases try to smear the victim to get the jury to release the rapist so the rapist can strike again and again.

You use it to make no other equally absurd case because it doesn't fit your worldview. And the fact that you use it, the fact that people like you use it, propagate this lie just so they can have an excuse to blame the victim, results in more rapists being left out.

You used an argument that doesn't hold water as the only basis to defend an assertion that is not true while neglecting to own up to any other things the argument you used would result in.

You further tried to use that argument to defend a view which is not only wrong, but dangerous, disingenuous and rape-inducing as well.

And I decided to - along with just about everyone here - show you and the spectators why you're so utterly, absolutely and completely WRONG.

Next time I offer you my mercy in arguments, you'd do well to take it.

Answer this, SL.