How Feminism Hurts Menhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/micah-j-m ... 66733.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/micah-j-murray/how-feminism-hurts-men_b_4266733.html)
QuoteYesterday somebody on Facebook told me that feminism elevates women at the expense of men, that its agenda to validate women emasculates us guys.
He was right.
For men, the rise of feminism has relegated us to second-class status. Inequality and discrimination have become part of our everyday lives.
Because of feminism, men can no longer walk down the street without fear of being catcalled, harassed, or even sexually assaulted by women. When he is assaulted, the man is blamed -- the way he dressed he was "asking for it."
Because of feminism, there are no major Christian conferences about how to act like men, where thousands of men can celebrate their manliness and Jesus (and perhaps poke fun at female stereotypes).
Because of feminism, church stages and spotlights are often dominated by women. Men are encouraged to just serve in the nursery or kitchen. Sometimes men are even told to stay silent in church.
Because of feminism, women make more money than man in the same jobs.
Because of feminism, it's hard to find a movie with a heroic male lead anymore. Most blockbusters feature a brave woman who saves the world and gets a token man as a trophy for her accomplishments.
Because of feminism, women's professional sports are a massively profitable enterprise where women are globally idolized. Men only appear briefly, before commercial breaks, when they're objectified for their bodies.
Because of feminism, all birth control is covered for women without question or debate, while men have to fight to get insurance companies to pay for their Viagra prescriptions. When men do speak up about this, leaders of the "family friendly" right wing labels them "sluts" and "whores."
Because of feminism, the male body is constantly under public scrutiny. If a man appears topless on TV, it's a national scandal resulting in huge fines and boycotts. Bloggers regularly write about how we need to be more mindful of the ways our clothing choices tempt women to sin. Satirists insist that shorts "aren't really pants" and then men should cover up because "nobody wants to see that."
Because of feminism, men are not represented in the White House, and women hold over 80 percent of the seats in Congress. When a man runs for office, his physical appearance and clothing choices are discussed almost as much as his policies and ideas.
Because of feminism, men must fight for a voice in the public sphere. In issues of theology, politics, science, and philosophy, the female perspective is often considered default, normal, and unbiased. Male perspectives are dismissed for being too subjective or too emotional. When we speak up, we are often dismissed as angry, rebellious, subversive, or dangerous.
But stay strong, bros.
One day we'll all be equal.
Whatever you do, don't read Jesus Feminist. It's full of ideas that will continue to oppress and harm men -- ideas such as "women are people too" and "the dignity of and rights of women are as important as those of men".
This article originally appeared on RedemptionPictures.com.
How sad. Brought tears to my eyes. :cry:
My favourite part:
QuoteBecause of feminism, men must fight for a voice in the public sphere. In issues of theology, politics, science, and philosophy, the female perspective is often considered default, normal, and unbiased. Male perspectives are dismissed for being too subjective or too emotional. When we speak up, we are often dismissed as angry, rebellious, subversive, or dangerous.
:rollin:
...please tell me this is satire.
#-o
Anything can be carried too far. Feminism is right now in the transition between a constructive, progressive movement and the distaff counterpart to male chauvinism.
I'm with Thunderf00t on this issue. The guy has been accused up and down of being a pro-rape misogynist, but having watched, listened to, and understood his videos, you find out that he's actually quite evenhanded on the subject, and his arguments are well thought out and sensible. What he sees is a political movement that is on the cusp of turning into a cult, of turning toxic, of turning its heads into unassailable gurus and literal yes-men, and instead of eliminating the oppression simply shifting that oppression from women to men, and he's calling bullshit on it. And the icing on the cake here is that when rebutting him, TF's opponents can't seem to stop strawmanning his points.
QuoteBecause of feminism, the male body is constantly under public scrutiny. If a man appears topless on TV, it's a national scandal resulting in huge fines and boycotts. Bloggers regularly write about how we need to be more mindful of the ways our clothing choices tempt women to sin. Satirists insist that shorts "aren't really pants" and then men should cover up because "nobody wants to see that."
(//http://tvscreener.com/wp-content/uploads/reno-911-thomas-lennon-lt-jim-dangle.jpg)
Policeman. Hero. Fashion pioneer.
QuoteCertain men felt so lost that they started to dislike their own gender.
What we need is a media campaign to promote a healthy outlook on masculinity:
(//http://goodmenproject.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/man-card-revoked.jpg)(//http://blogs.jamaicans.com/gwgraeme/files/2012/12/bushmaster-ad1-600x450.jpg)
Eating red meat, not exercising, and owning a gun = manly
Quote-Billion dollar cosmetics industry (40yr old women trying to hold it together)
Yeah, because that's a really recent trend that completely coincided with feminism.
(//http://www.mandarava.com/a4grph/img/lg/egyptian-statues-small-egyptian-queen-nefertiti-statue_X_SUM7284.jpg)
I saw that linked article last night and thought it was fairly clever and funny.
More generally, thought, I think that "feminist" is one of those words that means so much that it doesn't mean anything (even more so that "atheist"). Like "atheist", "feminist" covers people/groups with a wide range of views who can have differing views on many topics and, especially, different tactics.
For example, a while back I saw a lot of "feminists also don't want you [men] to loose custody of you children and have to pay child support/alimony, either" floating around the internet; as if feminists have strong party discipline and all agreed to vote along party lines. Obviously the reality is much messier. I've seen self-described feminists argue against the presumption of equal custody, saying instead that the woman should be the default primary custodian unless the father can prove he deserves equal rights. I've seen (especially from younger and communist feminists) claims that courts giving custody and child support to women is an example of the patriarchy oppressing women by removing them from the workforce, eliminating economic freedom and forcing them to depend on men (both the man paying child support and the male-run/patriarchal courts and government). I've also seen many more nuanced positions in between.
All to often when I see people talking (either good or ill) about "feminists" they sound uncannily similar to "atheists are genocidal maniacs, just look at North Korea and the Soviet Union"
Quote from: "Poison Tree"All to often when I see people talking (either good or ill) about "feminists" they sound uncannily similar to "atheists are genocidal maniacs, just look at North Korea and the Soviet Union"
Both ideas are similar in that most people don't have much of a problem with the core concept, but the term itself comes with all sorts of baggage and generates strong emotional reactions.
It's funny sometimes to see people say that they aren't a feminist and then describe their position with the textbook definition of feminism.
The gender pay gap is a complicated issue and how the gap is calculated can make a huge difference. Take that Swedish study: "Women between 20 and 64 years old currently have a 77-percent employment rate, compared to an 83-percent rate for men." Was the difference in employment rate figured into the pay difference?
Swedish women take 76% of parental leave (I'm guessing it is higher in America), I'm certain that decreases their earnings, both directly from lost hours (at least in countries/jobs without payed leave) and likely makes them somewhat less likely for advancement that year.
I've seen some studies that claim that single, never married, childless women make slightly more than men* in the same field with the same education (*I some said simply "men" others "single, never married, childless men"; I even saw the same study reported both ways).
I've seen it claimed that each child "costs" a woman a 7% pay reduction, so the US average of 2.06 children would be 14.42% pay reduction, more-or-less half of the pay difference.
Women tend to be more likely to take low-wage jobs.
I've seen claims that when these factors are accounted for the pay gap drops to 5-7% or even 1-2%--still a problem (hell, if I were the CEO of a big company and could reduce labor cost by 2% I think I'd employ only women), but not on the same level as a 30% difference.
Should we encourage more men to take (equal) parental leave (or more responsibility for the upbringing of their children, generally)? Absolutely--I hate it when a man says he is "babysitting" his own child. Is a major reason women end up in lower paying jobs because "nurse and teacher are "women's work" while doctor and lawyer are "man jobs""? Probubly.
As a stay at home dad, I guess I'm on the cutting edge of.......whatever.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"What does women tend to get low paying jobs mean?
For the sake of argument, pretend every STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) worker gets payed exactly the same, and every pre-college teacher gets payed the same (as every other pre-college teacher). If we looked at STEM employed women, they would get payed the same as STEM employed men, and teacher employed women would get payed the same as teaching employed men.
However, STEM jobs pays good salaries and teaching pays like crap. STEM jobs tend to be dominated by men (roughly 80% men in some specialties) and women are over-represented in pre-college teaching. So if we look at men vs women based only on age group (which, based on what you posted, is what the Swedish study did) then men would out earn women, even if everything else were the same, because men make up a larger percentage of well payed STEM workers and a lower percentage of low payed teachers then women do.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"It's about paying one group of people one salary, but paying other doing the same job less on purpose, because she has a vagina. There is really nothing complicated about this.
Some of it* actually is as simply as equally qualified women getting payed less then men in the same job. However, some of it is men and women working in different paying jobs/fields at different rates. Some of it is women taking more time out of the workforce to raise children and care for elderly family members. Some of it is women being more likely to work part time jobs, with fewer hours and lower per-hour pay than full time jobs.
*the US Department of Labor/CONSAD Research Corp (//http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf) says that
QuoteThere are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for [. . .] between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of [the gender pay gap] and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.
instead of the raw gender pay gap of 20 to 30 percent.
On the topic of pregnancy and maternity leave, I'm going to have to take the side of the businesses this time... if someone is going to take 3 months off, I'm going to have to train a replacement to do your job anyway... if that replacement person is at least as good as you are, I really don't see much of a reason to hire the old person back, who would then have to enter another retraining period to get back up to speed. (Obviously if they aren't as capable it's a different story)
And the same reasoning holds when hiring... if I can pick between a guy and a girl who are equally qualified and are paid the same, I'll take the guy because I'll run less risk of them having to leave for 3 months to have a baby.
These things impact businesses, and businesses run on money, so it's obvious you can see them reflected in how they treat their different workers. Even as someone who believess in equality, in this area sometimes they simply aren't equal when it comes to making business decisions. You can call that unfair, but it's simply calculating the biological risks you take when hiring someone.
The fact that I don't want to make the above decisions plays a major part in why I do not want to be caught dead in a management or business role, but I find it hard to blame someone who is hired to make as much as possible for making decisions that will generate the most money... and those can certainly look unfair to women. And lots of other groups of people. That's what you get when you build an economy and company entirely around making money.
I usually differentiate between feminists and "feminists" that are radical. Women's Suffrage is clearly the former, but people that deride Men's Rights movement are the latter, in my mind.
It's a complicated issue, with bad apples on both sides, but I find it to be leveraged against women in most parts, so radical "feminism" isn't so surprising given the frustration of dealing with at least ten times as many male chauvinists than female chauvinists.
Quote from: "Poison Tree"For the sake of argument, pretend every STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) worker gets payed exactly the same, and every pre-college teacher gets payed the same (as every other pre-college teacher). If we looked at STEM employed women, they would get payed the same as STEM employed men, and teacher employed women would get payed the same as teaching employed men.
However, STEM jobs pays good salaries and teaching pays like crap. STEM jobs tend to be dominated by men (roughly 80% men in some specialties) and women are over-represented in pre-college teaching. So if we look at men vs women based only on age group (which, based on what you posted, is what the Swedish study did) then men would out earn women, even if everything else were the same, because men make up a larger percentage of well payed STEM workers and a lower percentage of low payed teachers then women do.
How do you propose making STEM subjects more attractive to women? I'd love to see more women in my profession but it's a total sausagefest out here.
QuoteHow do you propose making STEM subjects more attractive to women? I'd love to see more women in my profession but it's a total sausagefest out here.
Step one would be a cultural shift where people don't tell their daughters "don't touch that, it's dangerous, why don't you play with dolls instead?"
It's ridiculous how many parents treat their daughters like vulnerable little dolls and their sons like indestructable machines.
But good luck with that. It's going to take a
long time, especially when grandparents get involved. (I should know <<)
I want to comment here, but the conversation seems to be veering in 40 directions at once at times..
I do know the women in my family have never accepted traditional female roles of daintiness and all that gibberish. They are and were always willing to stand up for themselves, have careers and not run around like helpless, breakable dolls.
Still there is that part of my brain that likes dainty, helpless breakable dolls even though I know it to be unrealistic.
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Poison Tree"For the sake of argument, pretend every STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) worker gets payed exactly the same, and every pre-college teacher gets payed the same (as every other pre-college teacher). If we looked at STEM employed women, they would get payed the same as STEM employed men, and teacher employed women would get payed the same as teaching employed men.
However, STEM jobs pays good salaries and teaching pays like crap. STEM jobs tend to be dominated by men (roughly 80% men in some specialties) and women are over-represented in pre-college teaching. So if we look at men vs women based only on age group (which, based on what you posted, is what the Swedish study did) then men would out earn women, even if everything else were the same, because men make up a larger percentage of well payed STEM workers and a lower percentage of low payed teachers then women do.
How do you propose making STEM subjects more attractive to women? I'd love to see more women in my profession but it's a total sausagefest out here.
Same here. I'm a final year student and my course has a single-digit number of women compared to hundreds of men.
However, film studies et al are 80:20 girls to boys or thereabouts.
This is despite masses of money and large amounts of time being devoted to "women in engineering" grants, advertisements, lectures, funds, talks etc.
In the UK more girls to to university than boys, however the aforementioned distribution across subjects makes far more of these girls have trouble finding unemployment than the male students. Of all the female students that I personally know who graduated last year, the majority did degrees with limited application in the real world (and all of them reported being on courses with a huge female to male bias) and are now working admin jobs and other jobs that do not require a university education. Many male graduates are having to do the same, however I cannot for the life of me see it as unfair that someone who did an easy course like this is getting paid less than someone who did something really difficult and gained skills which are in demand, and regardless of fairness, that is how the economy works: employers will only pay people for skills they need, and watching movies is unfortunately not usually one of them. This then begs the question: is the overall pay gap indicative of women being paid less for the same work, or is it indicative of women not taking up lucrative careers? Perhaps both?
Perhaps more could be done to encourage women to take up these subjects, but on the other hand, it strikes me that on average, fewer women are interested in them in general. I'm sure there are environmental influences on this, but perhaps it is worth considering that women are less predisposed to find subjects like this interesting on average?
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteHow do you propose making STEM subjects more attractive to women? I'd love to see more women in my profession but it's a total sausagefest out here.
Step one would be a cultural shift where people don't tell their daughters "don't touch that, it's dangerous, why don't you play with dolls instead?"
It's ridiculous how many parents treat their daughters like vulnerable little dolls and their sons like indestructable machines.
But good luck with that. It's going to take a long time, especially when grandparents get involved. (I should know <<)
Not forcing your children to play how you feel they should play, and not forcing interests on them, and letting them develop their own is definitely something every parent should be trying to do. I fully agree that effort should be made not to force children into gender roles by essentially saying "you shouldn't like machines and cars, you're a girl" etc. However, I can't help but think that even without being forced not to want to do STEM subjects, a majority of girls simply don't want to do them anyway.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Poison Tree"For the sake of argument, pretend every STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) worker gets payed exactly the same, and every pre-college teacher gets payed the same (as every other pre-college teacher). If we looked at STEM employed women, they would get payed the same as STEM employed men, and teacher employed women would get payed the same as teaching employed men.
However, STEM jobs pays good salaries and teaching pays like crap. STEM jobs tend to be dominated by men (roughly 80% men in some specialties) and women are over-represented in pre-college teaching. So if we look at men vs women based only on age group (which, based on what you posted, is what the Swedish study did) then men would out earn women, even if everything else were the same, because men make up a larger percentage of well payed STEM workers and a lower percentage of low payed teachers then women do.
How do you propose making STEM subjects more attractive to women? I'd love to see more women in my profession but it's a total sausagefest out here.
Same here. I'm a final year student and my course has a single-digit number of women compared to hundreds of men.
Likewise, film studies et al are 80:20 girls to boys or thereabouts.
This is despite masses of money and large amounts of time being devoted to "women in engineering" grants, advertisements, lectures, funds, talks etc.
Perhaps more could be done to encourage women to take up these subjects, but on the other hand, it strikes me that on average, fewer women are interested in them in general. I'm sure there are environmental influences on this, but perhaps it is worth considering that women are less predisposed to find subjects like this interesting on average?
I'm fully open to the possibility that women and men will never be interested in every job at an equal rate. To slightly modify a Michael Shermer quote, "A variance from perfect demographic symmetry does not necessarily correspond to [sexist] attitudes. It just means that the world is not perfectly divided up according to population demographics, and people have different interests and causes"
I don't think the male/female ratio we have now is ideal, but would have no idea what ratio to aim for, which obviously makes identifying success difficult. I certainly don't think we should just slap a 50/50 (or 40/60 or any) quota system forcing a certain percentage of STEM jobs/students to be female.
I think Plu is correct that it is going to be a slow cultural shift. But it shouldn't be one that simply forces more women into "men's work". As drunkenshoe has mentioned, success for men and women are defined differently: Men need to make money and hold titles and women need to raise a family--according to society. I think there has been more of a focus (probably still not enough of one, though) on the second half of that then on the first. I'd say that a stay-at-home-dad is judged more negatively then a working-mother is. I know guys who would like to spend more time with their children but feel like they can't because they need to "be the man of the house" or "wear the pants in the family". And women who would like to stay in the workforce feel like they need to drop out to raise the kid. If men felt that they were allowed to raise their kids, not only would the ones of them who want to do that be happier, but it would create more room in the workplace for women--working mothers or not. (There is a particularly reactionary minded couple I knew where the wife quit her job because "women raise the children" even when her husband was unemployed #-o )
Brandon Marshall (//http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-11-06/sports/chi-marshall-calls-for-change-20131106_1_brandon-marshall-richie-incognito-jonathan-martin) actually mentioned something relevant here.
Quote"Look at it from this standpoint," Marshall said. "Take a little boy and a little girl. A little boy falls down and the first thing we say as parents is 'Get up, shake it off. You'll be OK. Don't cry.' A little girl falls down, what do we say? 'It's going to be OK.' We validate their feelings. So right there from that moment, we're teaching our men to mask their feelings, to not show their emotions.
From an early age society is telling girls that they should be "soft" and boys that they need to be "tough". We shouldn't be surprised that nurturing jobs--like early age teaching--tend to attract people who are naturally, and have then been allowed to be, "soft"; nor that hyper-competitive--and often very well compensated--jobs are taken by people who have constantly been told about how tough they are/need to be.
I don't know how to change that (maybe force boys to listen to
cat's in the cradle while girls hear
eye of the tiger), except to keep up the slow job of convincing people that they each, regardless of their gender, should be able to define success for themselves and (even more difficult) that they shouldn't judge a second person as a failure based on the first person's definition.
Quote from: "Jmpty"As a stay at home dad, I guess I'm on the cutting edge of.......whatever.
Insanity? :-D
I never thought women were insane except for trading a little sex for passing a 10 lb blob of bone and guts through between their legs.. Now THAT'S nuts! :shock: :lol:
QuoteHowever, I can't help but think that even without being forced not to want to do STEM subjects, a majority of girls simply don't want to do them anyway.
I don't consider that a problem, really. We should let people do what they want without obstructing them on cultural or social or gender grounds. If the outcome is that girls don't like STEM subjects... great, that's their own choice. Not someone else's.
I'm tempted to comment, but this discussion has went in multiple directions at once.
I guess I'll just have to give my own perspective on the issue - it doesn't matter to me what the gender of the person who walks through the door is; no more than it matters what color their skin happens to be. The only thing that matters when a person (male or female) comes in to apply for a job is are they capable to do the job? Once they are hired, how do they compare against the backdrop of the other employees?
All too often I have seen the issue of gender come up to cloud the issue. I've seen women who were extremely lazy and incompetent rise in rank because they were more than eager to use the "feminist" card to cause chaos with herself being elevated so they could save politically correct face. I've also seen decent, hardworking, and often brilliant women overlooked because their employers happen to notice she had boobs.
The idea that forcing others to accept a person by bringing in one characteristic about that person probably isn't the best way to go. At work, a person's best attribute isn't their genitals or the color of their skin - it's their work ethic, their resilience, and how they navigate the work environment.
You want women to be accepted as equals in society? Stop bringing so much attention to the fact they are female. Let them be judged on their merits has a human being. Let the lazy and incompetent rightfully fall to the side and let the hardworking and skilled rightfully earn their place - gender be damned. Furthermore, you want to make things more equal - give men equal rights to paternity leave so that employers will have no idea which is more likely -- paternity leave or maternity leave. Then these subtle differences everyone is so fixated on will become non-issues.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"I'm really sick of digging up thesis', research articles nobody reads. So let me say it very simple. The fact that Radical feminism exists in US or in Norther Europe, doesn't change a bigger scale fact that world needs feminism.
Yes. I agree. The world does need feminism. Just not the radicals.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"As long as the below report is the norm, anyone with a propaganda of 'feminism is about to become male chauvinism' can fuck off.
Let me point out the obvious: you can be a feminist in the classical sense, yet think that the current feminist
movement is about to turn toxic. It is precisely
because the current movement is turning toxic in the US that may harm the feminist cause as a whole, by inciting a backlash against the ideals that we are actually after, as those in power start to see the radicals (and thus all feminists) as self-entitled whiners. It also tends to distance those who might be one's allies.
In short, radical feminists who screech 'YOU PATRIARCHAL ASSHOLE!' against any criticism are people serving no one, even other feminists.
The problem with feminism is that the term means too much, and that feminists refuse to deal with their radicals.
Christians are honest enough to engage in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Feminists have taken it a step further and simply say "Not All Feminists Are Like That." So is it fair or unfair to take a radical as an example of the group? Christians say "no" while Feminists say "well, NAFALT."
They either need to embrace or reject the radicals, but they're trying to have it both ways and that can't be done.
I often say "because I believe in equality, I won't call myself a feminist." I have a friend who says "because I believe in equality, I will call myself a feminist." Which of us is right?
QuoteNobody wants to talk about domestic violence against women, army rape issue with women, the sexualising of females from an early age, issues with prostitution, issues with work, wages, motherhood; Human Rights.
Including the radical feminists themselves, it seems. When was the last time you heard the likes of Rebecca Watson talk about that stuff in anything approaching a mature manner? She instead comes off as a professional victim, who uses the fact that she is harassed online to stroke her ego.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"I'm sure she is not the only one. And that's surprising to you? Anyone who has to put up with typical male knee jerk reactions in every level with the minimum criticism from 'man hating cunt' to 'were you gang raped' when brought up simple documented issues sooner or later develops an unhealthy response.
Really, if you are familiar with the subject you should know the automatic male response to this in every medium. It's unavoidable. It's hostile and at times it's impossible to deal with. But if it is your first reflex to pull out some bad defence mechanism that has occurred as a result of beaten down by aggressive insult, you are either a hypocrite or don't know-care about what's going on... whichever and just chatting out of boredom.
Here, I am not talking about responsible adults addressing serious social problems in the real world connected to gender, both here and around the world. I am talking about people who act like whiny children in response to sincere criticism, like Rebecca Watson, PZ Myers and their ilk.
I would take the radical feminist rhetoric more seriously if Carrie Poppy (echoed by PZ Myers) didn't accuse Michael Shermer of rape based
completely on the testimony of an unnamed and possibly nonexistent third party, instead of doing what a responsible person faced with damning evidence of such a crime and reporting it to the police, and if FTB didn't turn into an echo chamber of calls to bring Shermer down as if he had already been tried and convicted of rape. I would take their rhetoric more seriously if Rebecca Watson didn't spin an elevator incident, in which she —by her own account— was approached by someone who was courteously asking for a coffee with her, into a broad-sweeping accusation that atheist conventions are havens for sexual harassment. I would take Anita Sarkeesian more seriously with her rhetoric about how computer games are objectifying women had she addressed in her "extensive research" how sexism in video games promotes sexism in real life when violence in video games fails to do so for violent crime, and if playing computer games didn't render one's genitalia irrelevant.
These people are
not addressing serious social issues found in the real world. These people are
making shit up. No movement will ever be served by
people who make shit up.Feminism is the radical notion that women are people. I would like to propose an equally radical corollary: that women can be idiots, assholes, and outright liars.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteHowever, I can't help but think that even without being forced not to want to do STEM subjects, a majority of girls simply don't want to do them anyway.
I don't consider that a problem, really. We should let people do what they want without obstructing them on cultural or social or gender grounds. If the outcome is that girls don't like STEM subjects... great, that's their own choice. Not someone else's.
Of course it isn't a problem. The point I'm trying to make is that as a result of this, average pay for both genders absolutely will be different and the fact that it is isn't necessarily a problem, although it is very often touted as one.
The real issue is a woman getting paid less for the same work based solely on her being female which clearly isn't acceptable.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Really, Jason? You compared religious groups to radical feminist groups?
Yes. And ... ?
I guess you want examples outside of religion that show the use of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Is that what you need?
Let's break it down to simple terms.. Religion seeks total and utter dominance over nearly every aspect of our lives based on ancient, outdated texts they claim came straight from some invisible man in the sky.
Yeah, that's exactly the same as women wanting fair and equal treatment under law that most men enjoy..
Of course! How can you not see the similarities Shoezie? :roll: :)
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. In the case of most of our hideous media the most outrageously stupid gets the most attention.
I'm not very good at it, but I do try to keep things on simple to understand terms because I tend to get lost in big jumbles of debates and words where people toss out all kinds of conflicting ideas and I think most people are kind of that way. The problem it seems is that with so many simplistic ideas tossed at so many simplistic minds the dumb shit seems to stick. :-/
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Let's break it down to simple terms.. Religion seeks total and utter dominance over nearly every aspect of our lives based on ancient, outdated texts they claim came straight from some invisible man in the sky.
Yeah, that's exactly the same as women wanting fair and equal treatment under law that most men enjoy..
Of course! How can you not see the similarities Shoezie? :roll: :)
*Holds her fists up. Because I am an eeviiiil man-hating-cunt-witch-bitch with an agenda to enssslave all of the men on this earth! Buuuwhahahaaa! :twisted:
Well we KNEW that.. All your posts are man hating, evil, cunt-witch-bitch posts... All except the ones where you use your eloquent words GLORIFYING men in your own humble manner. :lol:
All I can say is I love women and think a lot of men are pigs that treat women like sex objects :-k ---wait, they are sex objects if they are beautiful, attractive, and sexy. I don't see any difference in men or women in positions of power. I have to wonder how women can be better educated than men and have lower paying jobs. I was a stay at home dad, and got more grief from people because I was, and my wife still resents it because she wasn't with my two boys then---I didn't get paid anything just like women that do.
When I was younger it was a "mans" duty to take care of his wife and children because it only took one job to provide for a family. I can't believe most women wouldn't rather stay home with their family with a husband providing for them than out in the rat race. It's the fact that too many men shirk their responsibilities to their family and leave their family alone so the wife has to work now or starve. Single mothers really have it rough and deserve equal pay, as do minorities that do most of the hard work. Solitary
I can believe a lot of women don't want to just stay home hoping 'daddy' will provide because men always have the option to leave or withhold money or whatever. With the exception of my own mother not a single woman in my family has ever had the luxury of staying home caring for kids while 'daddy' earned the money. Not one. Their husbands and bf's ALL turned out useless..my sisters, nieces, daughters have ALL had to work. I'd love to say my ex didn't have to work, but I would be lying. And even if they do have that 'luxury' and spend twenty years raising kids it's not much to put on a resume later in life in case the man leaves or dies or gets disabled or any number of unforeseen circumstances.
That doesn't even go to the perhaps overlooked issue of women who have multiple kids then their youthful looks disappear faster than women who never have children.
I gotta say, given all things being equal I'm glad I was born with 'dangly things' :shock: :-k :)
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "Solitary"I was a stay at home dad, and got more grief from people because I was, and my wife still resents it because she wasn't with my two boys then---I didn't get paid anything just like women that do. Solitary
Wow, which decade was that? I can't imagine the bullshit you got from men or women.
It was back when Joan of Ark was working.. :lol:
My Stepdad worked his ass off and handed all the money over to Mom who stayed home and ran the household. She gave Dad a little for gas and incidentals. He treated her like a queen. She often complained of being bored and ran off with a guy who beat her and treated her like shit, and she stayed with him for years until he died. Go figure.
I followed dad's example and my wife stayed home with the kids, had control of the paycheck, and was an equal partner in our relationship. I had no problems with her working if she wanted to, but she didn't. She left as well, because she was bored. The kids were 8 and 10 years old, and I was deployed in the military. She regretted it later on, but there's no going back.
Don't know what my point is other than women can be just as shitty as men. I stopped putting women on a pedestal and now only treat them according to their actions and ability. When I hear someone label themselves a feminist I figure they got a chip on their shoulder and stay away. I'd probably do the same if someone labeled them self a masculinist, but I haven't heard anyone say that yet.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "Solitary"I was a stay at home dad, and got more grief from people because I was, and my wife still resents it because she wasn't with my two boys then---I didn't get paid anything just like women that do. Solitary
Wow, which decade was that? I can't imagine the bullshit you got from men or women.
I can. Because I've tried it.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Then you added the below statement to that conclusion as if that is something defined as contradictory to the radical notion of being people?
QuoteI would like to propose an equally radical corollary: that women can be idiots, assholes, and outright liars.
The radical notion of human rights is that they are fundamentally and inherently belong to each individual. Period. Whomever, wherever, under what circumstances whatsoever. You cannot go more radical than that. Would you like to propose another "equally radical corollary" to that notion or do you reserve the privilege for feminism only. Because I assure you, lying, being an idiot and an asshole are the basic qualities if you are a homo sapient.
Precisely. The thing about a movement is that some people get holier-than-thou on you and start thinking that they are free of criticism because they are a part of a particular movement.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"2) And all that is because of this series of media events you illustrated below. And you decided feminists are making shit up.
I've decided SOME feminists are making shit up. Get with the program.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Who is Carrie Poppy, Hakurei? She is an actress, PETA activist and an internet personality. She writes on the order of the day. Why do you know about her? Because her name comes up with the key words 'skepticism', 'atheism' (she is a fresh atheist) and 'secularism'. Let's get mean. What's the difference between Carrie Bradshaw and Carrie Poppy, besides one is a fictional character and other is a real person? Not really much. Other than that Poppy addresses a minority group in comparison and using a very politically correct language for the issues she 'pretends' to question and write about. That woman gave an interview about a secularism and women conference she attended, WITHOUT uttering one word of feminism, human rights, how the religious norms are the underlying cause of most problems and the failing 'social justice' ( a word she loves to use). She raised the question of animal rights activism as an atheist activist in secularism conference. With her carefully chosen librarian glasses, 'good looking blondes can be smart too'. She is what we call in my country as a 'sweet water typist'. and she has a perfect package to get a place in American pop culture.
She also passed along a rumor of rape by a high profile person, a victim whose identity or even existence is yet unconfirmed. That's serious business. Last I heard, Shermer is looking into libel charges.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"That woman cannot produce an independent, well thought original idea or let alone represent some rational stand to a bandwagon reaction triggered by a scumbag who was after some cheap defamation of a personal enemy.
I'm sorry, are you trying to defend Carrie here, because this doesn't sound like a defense.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Rebecca Watson. Internet personality. 'The Skepchick'. Rebecca Watson experienced something that happens to every woman in some way. But she happens to be someone WITH A VOICE.
Also, Skeptics Guide to the Universe, which I listen to every week, and in that venue, completely engaging, funny, and insightful.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"So what outraged you is that she said atheism conferences are heavens for sexual harassment.
Without proof, or even a plausible pattern of bad behavior. She's on the
Skeptics Guide to the Universe, for fuck's sake. I expected
much better of her.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Atheism is the lack of belief in any kind of deities and gods. "I would like to propose an equally radical corollary: those people can be idiots, assholes, and outright liars, rapists, murderers, sexual abusers."
Yes, they can. But most people
aren't rapists, murderers or sexual abusers, you idiot.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"But she shouldn't have talked about something that made her comfortable and may be a little frightened for a moment, because NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR IT.
She went further than that, Shoe! She berated all of the male part of the species to "not do that," as if
she should be the standard of what constitutes creepy behavior. The encounter was —by her own account— courteous and brief. It's
exactly how I'd expect anyone to behave on an elevator and ask me to coffee.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Because a deliberate defamation attempt renders all sexual harassment experienced by every women from early teens redundant. She should have shut up. Atheist pride and male pride gets injured. What a man hating cunt!
Go fuck yourself.
Her own words and actions made me decide that, on feminist matters, she is useless, just like Jenny McCarthey is useless on medical matters.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"This is a very good example to what happens to any woman complains about something like this. And all you are pissed off about, Hakurei is that 'but she said atheist conferences are havens for sexual harassment'.
A statement that she has, as of yet, not substantiated. Because I'm a fucking skeptic and have the damn gall to demand evidence to substantiate claims, esp. claims that an entire movement is festering with anti-feminism.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Could you please show me some examples for male bloggers receiving death and rape threats for speaking their minds, telling their experiences and the criticism they make?
Yes. Thunderfoot. Maybe not the rape, but he was sexually harassed when some moron put his head on a nude male body and passed it around the internet. He only lost his shit with direct threats on his family.
QuoteAs I got to the elevator, a man who I had not yet spoken with directly broke away from the group and joined me. As the doors closed, he said to me, "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting. Would you like to come back to my hotel room for coffee?" I politely declined and got off the elevator when it hit my floor.
Sounds like a completely innocent encounter so far.
QuoteA few days later, I was making a video about the trip and I decided to use that as an example of how not to behave at conferences if you want to make women feel safe and comfortable.
And here she goes off the rails.
QuoteAfter all, it seemed rather obvious to me that if your goal is to get sex or even just companionship, the very worst way to go about attaining that goal is to attend a conference, listen to a woman speak for 12 hours about how uncomfortable she is being sexualized at conferences, wait for her to express a desire to go to sleep, follow her into an isolated space, and then suggest she go back to your hotel room for "coffee," which, by the way, is available at the hotel bar you just left.
Wow. She must be a mind-reader. Not only did she diagnose that the guy wanted to bang her or cuddle with her, she knew that "coffee" was just a pretext for that. Also, he KNOWS that she had been speaking for 12 hours.
Or the guy
really did want to have a nice private chat with her over coffee, away from the din of the hotel bar, and wasn't thinking about how long she had been up, and maybe could be talked into staying up a bit longer. Guys are like that.
QuoteWhat I said in my video, exactly, was, "Guys, don't do that," with a bit of a laugh and a shrug. What legions of angry atheists apparently heard was, "Guys, I won't stop hating men until I get 2 million YouTube comments calling me a 'cunt.' " The skeptics boldly rose to the imagined challenge.
Again, her amazing mind-reading skills at work. She brushed him off responsibly. That should have been the end of it. Instead, she makes a vlog post about it, pretending it was a 'teachable moment'.
That's why she got flamed. She pretended it was a teachable moment, and it was not. She pretended that it was especially creepy, when it was not.
Furthermore, that's ALL the first response was: flamage. Typical internet sewage from internet users upset that a couple of minutes of their life was flushed down the toilet because Rebecca decided this was a 'teachable moment'. And yes, it was inflamitory, but that's the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory at work.
QuoteEven Dawkins weighed in. He hadn't said anything while sitting next to me in Dublin as I described the treatment I got, but a month later he left this sarcastic comment on a friend's blog:
Dear Muslima
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and ... yawn ... don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so ...
And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.
Richard
Yes. Because, on reflection, Dawkins decided that Rebecca's 'teachable moment' was anything but, too, her response was disproportionate and undeserved, and was venting his spleen that Rebecca wasted everyone's time on what ultimately was a non-event. Hence, his sarcastic letter.
QuoteDawkins' seal of approval only encouraged the haters. My YouTube page and many of my videos were flooded with rape "jokes," threats, objectifying insults, and slurs. A few individuals sent me hundreds of messages, promising to never leave me alone. My Wikipedia page was vandalized. Graphic photos of dead bodies were posted to my Facebook page.
Yes, she was harassed by anonymous trolls, because they sensed a high-profile and easily-butthurt target. This is typical troll behavior, trying to get a rise out of Rebecca, their chosen target. When she fed them (and knowing her personality, she is exactly the type who would feed trolls), they reacted with glee and doubled down, because that's what trolls do.
While I admit that Dawkins' own post may have quickened things by alerting trolls to an easily-butthurt target, the troll feeding frenzy would have ramped up just the same.
And nowhere here does she present any evidence that those trolls were atheists who were riled up because of something she said. Until such time, I'm going to assume that they were just in it for the lulz.
QuoteTwitter accounts were made in my name and used to tweet horrible things to celebrities and my friends. (The worst accounts were deleted by Twitter, but some, such as this one, are allowed to remain so long as they remove my name.) Entire blogs were created about me, obsessively cataloging everything I've ever said and (quite pathetically) attempting to dig up dirt in my past.
Given the amount of information that Anonymous has been able to dig up on more deserving targets, either they weren't trying very hard, or Rebecca really is that squeaky clean. Probably a little of both. I admit that dedicated blogs are a new tactic I haven't heard of, but given the ease that one can obtain an anonymous blog these days, I shouldn't be surprised.
QuoteThe best they seemed to come up with was that I obtained a bachelor of science in communication from Boston University. The horror! I actually made a joke about this in one of the first talks I ever gave, many years ago: "Don't take my word for it—I'm not a scientist. I have a BS in communication. I literally majored in talking bullshit."
Nevertheless, my shameful past as a college graduate was "exposed" and passed around on social media and forums and blogs, as triumphant skeptics demanded I stop writing and speaking about science since I lacked the proper credentials. (Interestingly, no one has ever petitioned for my three non-scientist podcast cohosts to be removed from the show. Probably just a coincidence.)
Curious, but does Rebecca's open letter have links, because I'd like to see this stuff for myself.
QuoteJust a week after Dawkins' "Dear Muslima" comment, I was scheduled to speak at The Amazing Meeting (TAM), a skeptics' conference in Las Vegas that in years past I had fundraised thousands of dollars to send dozens of women to. In the weeks leading up to TAM, a man tweeted that he was attending and that if he ran into me in an elevator, he'd assault me.
And you
believed him, Rebecca? He would attend the conference and if he met you he would assault you, with a traceable prior threat? Give me a break. I don't take seriously every comment along the lines of bodily harm, because the vast majority of them are empty internet tough-guy posturing.
QuoteThe organizers of the conference, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF)—the organization started by the person who first introduced me to skepticism—allowed the man to attend the conference and did nothing to reassure me.
Of course not. The threat wasn't credible. At all.
QuoteI attended anyway and never went anywhere alone. This past year I finally stopped attending TAM when the organizers blamed me and other harassed women in our community for driving women away by talking about our harassment.
Her only
actual encounter with a conferencegoer was courteous and polite. She painted a big internet target on her back when she presented her 'teachable moment' and was flamed for it. Trolls smelled blood and started pouncing on her for the lulz, perhaps aggravated by Dawkins' post. And because she was making noise that this was somehow the "atheist culture", a few of the trolls got it into their heads to make trouble for atheists too by acting the part. Similarly, unless I'm missing something, these "other harassed women" were also harassed
only on the internet. The internet, where random harassment is deeply ingrained into the culture by the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, yet she somehow deduced that everyone she was being harassed by was going to be after her at the conferences.
She allowed a small encounter with an elevator to spiral out of control into this big huge deal that affected the TAM conference. Of course the TAM coordinators were upset.
QuoteOther skeptical organizations have been more compassionate. Center for Inquiry (the umbrella organization for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry), American Atheists, and several humanist organizations have enacted anti-harassment policies for their conferences. But still, there are leaders in the skepticism community who refuse to accept that there is a problem,
Of course not everyone's going to "accept" that there is a problem. So far, Rebecca's
entire case hinges on one courteous encounter on an elevator, and behavior
indistinguishable from a troll feeding frenzy. No, the fact that Center for Inquiry, American Atheists, and "several humanist organizations" preemptively enacted anti-harassment policies does not mean that there is an actual problem.
Rebecca's on the SGU. She KNOWS that. I expected better.
Quoteand those who play the "both sides are wrong" game, insinuating that "misogynist" is just as bad an insult as "cunt."
Well, it is, if it happens not to be true.
QuoteMeanwhile, other skeptical women are being bullied out of the spotlight and even out of their homes. My fellow writer on Skepchick, Amy Davis Roth, moved after her home address was posted on a forum dedicated to hating feminist skeptics.
Now, that's actually serious, and the police should be contacted. However, given Rebecca's poor handling of the entire affair, I'm not actually surprised that she and her fellows attracted genuine haters.
QuoteIn September, blogger Greta Christina wrote that "when I open my mouth to talk about anything more controversial than Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster recipes or Six More Atheists Who Are Totally Awesome, I can expect a barrage of hatred, abuse, humiliation, death threats, rape threats, and more." And Jen McCreight stopped blogging and accepting speaking engagements altogether. "I wake up every morning to abusive comments, tweets, and emails about how I'm a slut, prude, ugly, fat, feminazi, retard, bitch, and cunt (just to name a few)," she wrote. "I just can't take it anymore."
Yes, it sucks when you pay because your fellow skepchick maligns over half of your audience and some get pissy enough about it to make your life miserable.
QuoteI know that this article will only rile up the sexist skeptics. I'll hear about how I'm a slut who deserves whatever I get, about how I'm a liar who made everything up,
Let me point out the obvious: if a skeptic asks to see the evidence for your claim that sexual harassment is epidemic at atheist and skeptical conferences,
you produce it, or risk being called a liar when you fail to do so. You should already know this, Rebecca.
Quoteabout how I've overreacted,
Given the huge deal this has become, I say this is experimentally verified.
Quoteand about how I should just ignore the trolls and they'll go away.
From what I've seen, it is exactly this approach that Rebecca
hasn't tried. Instead, she keeps harping on it.
QuoteI've written this article anyway, because I strongly believe that the goals of skeptics are good ones, like strengthening science education, protecting consumers, and deepening our knowledge of human psychology. Those goals will never be met if we continue to fester as a middling subculture that not only ignores social issues but is actively antagonistic toward progressive thought.
What, like challenging claims that sexual harassment is really as bad as Rebecca thinks it is? I think people are addressing these social issues — it's just not going the way Rebecca wants them to go.
QuoteI also believe that old line about sunlight being the best disinfectant. Ignoring bullies does not make them go away.
Trolls are not bullies. Flamers are not bullies. Bullies want to exert power over you. Trolls just want a response. Flamers just want you to cut the shit and go back to posting content.
QuoteFor the most part, the people harassing us aren't just fishing for a reaction—they want our silence. They're angry that feminist thought has a platform in "their community." What they don't get is that it's also my community.
Here's the thing. Rebecca has handled this entire situation very poorly. She's done the equivalent of taking a shit on the sidewalk and shouting, "LOOK AT MY IMPORTANT WORK!" when it's clear to everyone else that it's just a turd. Flamers want you to cut the shit. Trolls crave your butthurt tears. Both will be served by shutting up about it and moving on with your life.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"I don't need Sarkeesian feminism to understand the negative affect of the visual culture on our way of thinking. (Did you know they made a video game to beat her up, look around what happened her to say her opinion)
People have made games to beat up all manner of public figures, yet nothing comes of it, ever. It's just a form of venting and trolling. "Sarkeesian feminism" is a steaming load.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"We collect every kind of information along with the experience of the sensations and emotions it evokes in us from our toddler years. If these didn't play ant roles on our tastes, pleasures, dislikes, pains, how we view the world, we would have a very boring culture as a species, because there would be very little categories of everything. good, bad; benign-harmful.
If your understanding of the world comes cheifly through video games, then your problem runs much deeper than "sexist imagery."
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Your gender is not irrelevant to anything.
It is for PLAYING the game, you idiot.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Anyway, she is a female feminist internet persona she will suffer every disgusting threat.
Along with every other internet persona.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"I heard Anonymous made a call to her. Yeah, lol. Well, she is as dangerous as a terrorist! But I don't think you find a video beating up Sarkeesian or what Watson live through;
Yes, because trolls know that having bruised knuckles from actually beating up a victim is no fun. And that they wouldn't be nearly as nasty in real life anyway.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"the threats and the constant harassment these two women has to put up with daily nowhere near as bothering as the word atheist brought up in an uncomfortable story. Do you?
I have the benefit of distance. Also, the fact that Rebecca and Sarkeesian have failed to substantiate these threats as anything other than background empty internet posturing leaves me utterly unconcerned about them.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Read this link. It's about an experiment made about the gaming world. It's a very short read. http://www.themarysue.com/academic-stud ... arassment/ (http://www.themarysue.com/academic-study-game-harassment/)
I agree, it's a short essay. It's also near-worthless. For instance, this essay doesn't address whether or not players in the wild have had disproportionaltely negative experiences with women, impersonators, or young kids (whose voices may be confused for a woman in the heat of battle) playing online. You perform these kinds of experiments in the laboratory for a reason. That reason is 'controls.'
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"So this is the reason you are angry at feminism.
Excuse me? Are you a mind-reader, too?
I'm not "angry at feminism." I'm angry at the particular idiots who are trying to turn the feminist movement into a farce.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Internet bloggers and vloggers, column writers, sensational videos. And you don't think that the medium itself (a typical vlog or blog has to deliver its sensation under 5 min and has to be aggressive, easy) and the pop culture you live in and cangren situation described above has nothing to with, but it's all about feminists being radical. And there is no hostility in make reaction and how they response to the female threat?
Again, I see no particular "female threat" in the incidents we are discussing.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Tell me Hakurei, if I bombard you with loud and sensational enough, ratrace youtube videos and blogs-vlogs can I shake your understanding of reality? Because your take on the issue suggest you are not a really difficult one to manipulate.
I could say the same thing to you. My attitude towards Rebecca and Sarkeesian is tempered by my experience online. People who in real life are mild mannered and well-behaved, yet become beasts on the internet using all variety of insults they would not dare utter in real life and voicing threats they would not dare carry through. (Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory at work again.) There are people online who will harass other people completely for shits and giggles. They will use any means necessary to get a rise out of you, including pushing your berzerk buttons. I've endured all manner of abuse in my life. I've even dealt it out occasionally. And, yes, they will use misogynist language if they think that their target will lose their shit in response to it.
It is not a condonement of the practice. It is simply the truth. There's all kinds of nasty on the internet, and you need your asbestos underpants and rubber chest waders to navigate through it, because that's the kind of environment it is.
So far, you have been completely unable to substantiate the claims that Rebecca or Sarkeesian have suffered anything much beyond that of a regular, joe-blow internet hazing, indistinguishable in general form from any other random internet hazing incident, and what little remains can be adequately explained by the ire she raised by patronizing the male half of the population with a 'teachable moment.' Rebecca managed to turn a very innocent encounter into a major shitstorm. Sarkeesian made a video that, on close inspection, was little more than a bunch of buzzwords thrown together. Neither is worthy of praise, and while the backlash was not deserved, the way Rebecca and Anita handled that backlash was not praiseworthy either.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "Jack89"Don't know what my point is other than women can be just as shitty as men.
Women are human beings. Juts like men. Humans are also murderers, psychopaths, sociopaths, abusers, thieves...women get as good as humans can be and as bad as they are. Thinking one gender is something different than human is just...I don't know how to define it...like believing unicorns and waiting to see one all your life.
In your case, the experience you have with them is that one left your father other left you. They abandoned you.
QuoteI stopped putting women on a pedestal and now only treat them according to their actions and ability.
You shouldn't have been conditioned to do that in the first place.
QuoteWhen I hear someone label themselves a feminist I figure they got a chip on their shoulder and stay away. I'd probably do the same if someone labeled them self a masculinist, but I haven't heard anyone say that yet.
You figure it wrong. You should look for that chip on a different shoulder. If you think that your child hood and adult hood experiences haven't made up your mind, you are missing a lot. Forget feminism, it's baffling to me that you cannot make a simple connection to think, like you, some women also might have experienced the same with their fathers or spouses. Your own experience should be the primary source and the other necessary info is that children also born as girls and their fathers leave their mother and their husbands leave them. Or could be something else. But you just think if someone calls herself a feminist "oh she has a chip on he shoulder". This, I'll never get. (I don't mean attitude against feminism, unfortunately I get that very well.) I mean this narrow minded, unimaginative vision of life. People are not complicated, Jack. None of us are. We like to fantasize ourselves as some astonishing enigmas, but we are not. We are very simple. If it happened to you, it happened to countless people from every gender.
You haven't heard anyone say that because, there is no such thing as a masculinist. If you mean a male chauvinist that depends on your ability to recognise that behaviour -male chauvinism is not just treating women bad in some typical way as shown in big and small screen at every opportunity- which also depends on your ability to build an empathy and how you regard women. Male chauvinists do not just treat women that way, they also also treat certain type of men the same. I don't just mean homosexuals. I mean het men who treat women with respect as an equal. Look around a bit, you cannot miss it.
I'm sorry, you lost me. You went off on some tangents there. What I did get out of what you wrote is that you think that I have a "narrow minded, unimaginative vision of life" because I don't like the feminist label. Contrary to what you believe, I am making it very simple. I think people should be treated equally, according to their actions and ability. Period. Now that's pretty simple.
It get's complicated when people label themselves a champion for a particular sex, or gender, or religion, or ethnic group. It suggests to me that a feminist is only concerned with the advancement of women's causes and really isn't concerned with the equal part. Some very powerful and capable women reject the label as well, for much the same reason.
In the words of my history professor: "You men need to study so you can get a nice, smart woman with a high paying job who lets you sit at home and drink beer all day."
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Let's break it down to simple terms.. Religion seeks total and utter dominance over nearly every aspect of our lives based on ancient, outdated texts they claim came straight from some invisible man in the sky.
Yeah, that's exactly the same as women wanting fair and equal treatment under law that most men enjoy..
Of course! How can you not see the similarities Shoezie? :roll: :)
And of course that's exactly what I mean. No straw in that analysis. :roll:
That's why I often say "because I believe in equality, I do not call myself a feminist."
QuoteAs I got to the elevator, a man who I had not yet spoken with directly broke away from the group and joined me. As the doors closed, he said to me, "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting. Would you like to come back to my hotel room for coffee?" I politely declined and got off the elevator when it hit my floor.
If this is a bad thing, I wonder how a male is supposed to approach an equal female for anything.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "Plu"QuoteAs I got to the elevator, a man who I had not yet spoken with directly broke away from the group and joined me. As the doors closed, he said to me, "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting. Would you like to come back to my hotel room for coffee?" I politely declined and got off the elevator when it hit my floor.
If this is a bad thing, I wonder how a male is supposed to approach an equal female for anything.
Really, Plu? Is that the situation here?
If you want to be seen as an equal and not a weakling, the first step should probably being taking the things people say at face value. If I have to keep walking on my toes and treating women like glass puppets and be careful of the words I use around them because they immediately consider me a rapist thug because I have a penis, I will never consider those women my equals.
Until you reach the point where you can look at someone who comes up to you and says "would like to drink a cup of coffee with me?" and think "oh, he wants to drink a cup of coffee with me", you will never get any kind of equality, because you are immediately pushing away any guy who is actually trying to treat you like an equal out of a fear generated by gender-bias.
How can I possible consider someone an equal if they fear me because of my gender? How can you be an equal to someone that you can't simply walk up to and have an honest conversation with?
Beyond that, I have
no idea who Watson is, I really was only responding to the part about I quoted.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "Jack89"I'm sorry, you lost me. You went off on some tangents there. What I did get out of what you wrote is that you think that I have a "narrow minded, unimaginative vision of life" because I don't like the feminist label. Contrary to what you believe, I am making it very simple. I think people should be treated equally, according to their actions and ability. Period. Now that's pretty simple.
It get's complicated when people label themselves a champion for a particular sex, or gender, or religion, or ethnic group. It suggests to me that a feminist is only concerned with the advancement of women's causes and really isn't concerned with the equal part. Some very powerful and capable women reject the label as well, for much the same reason.
Wow, what a way to take the civilisation you live in for granted. Let me tell you something about it, it's not granted, it's championed.
What gets complicated when people 'label' themselves a champion for anything? How do you think any of those rights you rely on has been achieved? Did they fall from the sky? Or do you believe that you -or anyone else on this planet- live somewhere that everything has been achieved and sealed to stay that way irreversibly?
QuoteIt suggests to me that a feminist is only concerned with the advancement of women's causes and really isn't concerned with the equal part. Some very powerful and capable women reject the label as well, for much the same reason.
Oh, does it? So either you are living in some society which exist above the social norms of human culture dictated by religion and the state or you actually didn't think much about it at all, did you? Who are these women Jack? A secret underground organisation?
Jack, 'people should be treated equally according their actions and ability' is a wishful thinking that gets printed on somewhere as the daily quote. People are not treated equally according to their actions or abilities. If you are born rich or poor, black or white, male or female it determines your life doesn't matter what your actions or abilities are.
Every right, liberty we enjoy, including the ones I do in this backwards place I live is a result of people championing them in one way or another. For some they died and never even seen it was made real. They were labeled with far more worse labels than feminists.
Equality is not some construction arch made of indestructible material that gets build it once a civilisation becomes developed enough to understand the importance of it and carry it away. Equality is something that has to be provided constantly.
About the narrow minded statement as I said in the post, it wasn't about feminism itself. It was about the obvious connection you made when you are talking about your general experience with women. And as I said up there if you think there is no connection, you're missing a lot. This is not insulting you. This goes for every fucking one of us. And I tried to tell you that with "if it happened to you, it happened to countless people" including a very large amount of women. This was what I meant.
Why is it a fucking big deal to say someone 'step back for a moment and see your place in the world and all that mess, before producing a chip at someone's shoulder because you happen not to like what she comes from' Does that imply this doesn't go for me? How? That's all I have been saying almost about everything.
I'm tired of your insults and lectures. I'm done with this thread.
Reading through some of the above (your quotes are screwed up drunkenshoe, I think you missed a tag somewhere) it seems that the problem that Watson is trying to pass off as a gender problem isn't actually a gender problem and she's just abusing/mis-representing the situation for some reason.
It sounds like the problem is not at all that a guy asked her for coffee, but that she was threatened and thus scared when someone caught her alone and asked her a question.
This then creates a few problems...
A) It's not at all gender related. If she were a guy, this would have gone over exactly the same. It's not because she's a woman that this is a bad situation; it's because she has been threatened and is thus fearful.
B) It's being made out that it's the guy's fault, when most likely he has no idea that Watson was threatened and was just trying to chat with her. I don't think he's doing anything wrong for trying to talk to someone he considers interesting.
Forgive me for not reading through all of the posts in this thread, it's way too long for my tastes. Also, I'm not (and I don't think anyone is) blaming her for politely saying "no" to a guy she doesn't know. That's perfectly reasonable. It bothers me that she thinks this guy did something wrong in asking someone to come over for a drink. That's not a bad thing. It shouldn't ever be considered a bad thing.
If you aren't interested, you just say no. You don't blame the person for asking. But it's not a gender issue, and it's not the asker's fault. It's just one person asking another person for a cup of coffee and them saying no. And it should absolutely end there, with neither side being in the wrong. But somehow it gets converted into a gender issue and then made a problem of. And that annoys me.
But if people stop asking these things, you don't solve the gender problem and you will never solve the gender problem, because you are acknowledging and creating a giant divide between men and women that really shouldn't be there.
QuoteIn a perfect world I would agree with you. However, it is wishful thinking, an idealist approach. Doesn't work in reality.
Be the change you want to see in the world, or something like that. If you want people to be equal, treat everyone you meet as an equal. If that bothers them because they actually think they are lower in status than you, so be it. Either they can continue being confused that someone is treating them someone beter than they think they are, or they can slowly accept that maybe they really are an equal.
(And if someone is annoyed because you are treating them as an equal and they think themselves higher than you, they are not worth your time.)
Or, to recap in short, you can either ask me to treat you as an equal or as a woman, but not both. Either your gender matters, or it does not. I'd personally rather it didn't.
QuoteI'm trying to be that change in my personal life.
More power to you then. I wish everyone did that :)
QuoteAnd I don't do what she did, but get that why she did.
I get why she said no, but I do not approve of her posting about it later the way she apparently did. That said; I don't agree with the crap she got over it. Nobody deserves more than counter-arguments, being told they are wrong and maybe some ridicule over words they post online. Anyone responding to someone's opinion with the threat of violence is clearly in the wrong, and nobody deserves that kind of thing.
Its becoming clear to me that feminism is about as broad a term as "woman".
First we have the legitimate aspect of feminism. Pay gaps exist. Discrimination against women exists. Gender roles exist, and can be detrimental to women. These are legitimate complaints that need to be addressed if equality is to be achieved.
Within that subset seem to be three kinds of people who label themselves feminists.
1) Feminists that advocate actual equality, and will acknowledge that there are inequalities in society that effect both men and women. These people treat gender inequality as the problem, and don't focus on women's issues to the utter exclusion of everything else.
2) Feminists that only pay attention to the issues that effect women. These people operate, in my opinion, under the presumption that men's issues aren't worth addressing because men have all the advantages in life and all the power in society.
3) People who call themselves feminists, and promote their message by asserting that all men are potential rapists, males are a genetic mistake, and other pretty crazy shit. They also start massive amounts of drama over minor events, taking an invented issue and applying it to all men in the hopes of generating controversy. Though possibly small in actual number, they are the most vocal by far and get attention because of the dramatic value of their absurd assertions.
Its the latter group that confuses the issue of what feminism is the most. The first two are simply different outlooks on the same issue. The third is an intentionally inflammatory and insulting stance designed to promote a method that can never work and generate as much drama and attention as possible while doing it. This method is most commonly used by people attempting to make a name for themselves and cash in on that fame.
If that web is ever going to be untangled those who are driven by personal ambition and are willing to use feminism as a stepping stone to reach their goals need to be weeded out and labeled for what they are.
Trolls.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"2) Feminists that only pay attention to the issues that effect women. These people operate, in my opinion, under the presumption that men's issues aren't worth addressing because men have all the advantages in life and all the power in society.
It's less that "men don't have issues" and more a matter of having fewer and less urgent issues. Men don't have that whole "1 in 3 will be sexually assaulted" statistic going for them, after all. :) No doubt they need to be addressed, but as a man I'm pretty sure that something like "the expendable male" which doesn't even come up that often can
probably be put on the back-burner until the rape epidemic gets under control.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Nonsensei"2) Feminists that only pay attention to the issues that effect women. These people operate, in my opinion, under the presumption that men's issues aren't worth addressing because men have all the advantages in life and all the power in society.
It's less that "men don't have issues" and more a matter of having fewer and less urgent issues. Men don't have that whole "1 in 3 will be sexually assaulted" statistic going for them, after all. :) No doubt they need to be addressed, but as a man I'm pretty sure that something like "the expendable male" which doesn't even come up that often can probably be put on the back-burner until the rape epidemic gets under control.
I think you have a problem there. Its going to be impossible to convince men to care about women's issues after so blatantly disregarding mens issues. "You aren't important, now care about me".
Yeah okay.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"I think you have a problem there. Its going to be impossible to convince men to care about women's issues after so blatantly disregarding mens issues. "You aren't important, now care about me".
Yeah okay.
You might want to get your eyes checked, because I wrote no such thing.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Nonsensei"I think you have a problem there. Its going to be impossible to convince men to care about women's issues after so blatantly disregarding mens issues. "You aren't important, now care about me".
Yeah okay.
You might want to get your eyes checked, because I wrote no such thing.
Yeah you did. When you suggest that mens issues can be "put on the back burner", to me that says they aren't important enough to address. What did you think it meant?
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Nonsensei"I think you have a problem there. Its going to be impossible to convince men to care about women's issues after so blatantly disregarding mens issues. "You aren't important, now care about me".
Yeah okay.
You might want to get your eyes checked, because I wrote no such thing.
Yeah you did. When you suggest that mens issues can be "put on the back burner", to me that says they aren't important enough to address. What did you think it meant?
Are you seriously suggesting that "women and children first" is as urgent as fixing the rape epidemic? Something that happens in extreme situations versus something that happens a thousand times a day?
Being an "issue" doesn't give it equal priority.
It sounds like you're suggesting that we put all other problems on hold until the rape problem is sorted.
Quote from: "Jason78"It sounds like you're suggesting that we put all other problems on hold until the rape problem is sorted.
I'm saying: prioritize, prioritize, prioritize.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Yeah, that's exactly the same as women wanting fair and equal treatment under law that most men enjoy..
In western countries women recieve unfair and unequal treatment due to the sexism of some other people.
In terms of the law in most of these countries, yes, you are correct, they do recieve unfair and unequal treatment, in their favour.
The notion that any western woman is campaigning against a legal system which disadvantages them is absurd, because it doesn't. The only piece of legislation which I can think of is women not being allowed to fight on the frontline in most western countries. On the other hand, women recieve better treatment in multiple aspects of the legal system, and recieve far more gender-specific government funding for medical conditions, special women's careers programmes, etc. etc.
That is not to say that western women have no gender-specific issues, nor that they are not victims of sexism, because they are. This does, however, not come from the legal system.
Of course, this is not the case in many other parts of the world, where women are systematically mistreated by the state.
I have been thinking about this Rebecca Watson elevator thing, and I really don't think it was cool.
It is about cornering somebody, body language and imposed intimacy, it is rude, well to me anyway.
If you find yourself in an enclosed space with someone you don't have a rapport with, and you use that situation to gain something from the person I think you are exploiting the situation. In that situation I think light trivial banter might be the order of the day or maybe something serious but not too personal.
Your physical proximity does not equate to emotional intimacy, in fact if you are a stranger the physical proximity may well have crated the opposite of emotional intimacy in the other person, which may magnify the impact of anything inappropriate you say.
Ever have it happen to you? Stuck in parked car with someone while the driver nips out for ten minutes and you get asked something uncomfortable, or at a restaurant and you have the window seat and someone sits next to you on the isle seat blocking you in? Exploiting those moments is like a cheap salesperson tactic.
I think this guy should have tried banter, and then after they left the lift and there was a little distance between them, he could have then asked her his question.
In the guy's defence, some guys are really shy, inexperienced and socially inept, if you throw into that mix testosterone which can have a deleterious effect on empathy I am not surprised this shit happens all the time, the thinking of "great I got her alone at last, I feel safe, less exposed, brave, this is the right moment".
It might have helped if she had said no, and then proceeded to explain why she thought it was inappropriate to just him and not the world but it is not her job to mother him, especially if she was anxious.
I liked what feminism originally was for. To fight for womens rights and to make them more equal to men in every sense. However, the loudest bits of feminism these days seems to be about placing women above men rather than equality. Note that I say the loudist bits, not all of feminism.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Do you know what Richard Dawkins do further by using his fame and importance?
He prevented Watson from attending a conference by blackmailing, 'if she is to be there, I am not.'
"I don't want her speaking" This is an order of an aristocrat not some scientist's or activist's behaviour.
Refusing to associate with some person is hardly blackmail. It was Dave Silverman's choice to invite Rebecca or not, and it is Richard's choice to attend a meeting with Rebecca or not.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Like your outrage to Rebecca Watson because 'she took atheism's name in vain' and dare to express it with something that you didn't like.
Well, yes. If Rebecca says something I think is stupid, I'm going to call it stupid. I'm not preventing her from speaking, but if she says stupid shit, I'm not going to kowtow to her stupid shit.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"QuoteI've decided SOME feminists are making shit up. Get with the program.
Lol, it's interesting that you expect me to continue on some rule you set to be followed.
I expect you to follow the conversation as it unfolds, not your made up parody of it.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Especially if you think that you haven't touched anything about cited articles and at yhe other side of discussion, but just babbled about some internet personalities that annoyed you.
Given that it's the internet personalities are what I bear umbrage for, I don't see why this should surprise you.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"He is late. Yes and that was what I meant with the description I gave about her. Basically she was doing her job, by jumping that bandwagon.
"Jumping that bandwagon?" If you meant "jumping on that bandwagon," that's nobody's job.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"QuoteWithout proof, or even a plausible pattern of bad behavior. She's on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe, for fuck's sake. I expected much better of her.
You 'expected' something from someone you don't know, because she is on some skeptic, atheist podcast?
Well, yes! I expect her to have basic critical thinking skills and knowing how to back up her claims. Because that's what SGU is all about!
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Basically you expected her act in a way you approved, because she is an atheist and so you are. *Whistle. I am afraid you'll be disappointed a lot in your life.
Nice strawman. What I
expected her to do was be able to back up her claims that she was being threatened beyond that of normal internet noise. She has not.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Now you need to get aware of something. Watson DID NOT ACCUSE A PERSON. She told about a personal exprience that made her uncomfortable and may be a little alarmed for that moment. An experience almost EVERY WOMAN lives through at some time their lives.
Yes, and people are going to step on each others' shoes and make other people feel uncomfortable no matter what they do for as long as they are alive. You're not going to please everybody, and you're not going to be pleased by everybody. That's life.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"#-o Ehh, If you are not intelligent enough to understand why is that written, at least do not pretend as if you have made some relevant statement.
It means that
most people deserve the benefit of the doubt. You, however, have adequately proven that you are, in fact, a moron.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"She said, "Guys, don't do that". And as I wrote to Plu, Watson is not in the same place with you or me -unless you are in a similar position I don't know you. Women like Watson constantly receive rape, death threats at the drop of a hat without any 'incident' like this one she lived through.
Like I said before, the internet has a way of turning people who are well-behaved in real life into total fuckwads online. Hyperbole is the rule on the internet. While there may be a few who would go through with such threats, they are completely indistinguishable from the empty posturing that is the background noise.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"She is considered as an extreme and harmful personality in the society she lives in.
So you've moved beyond mind reading me and on to mind reading the entire society. Nice.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"She hasn't seen him in her life. He is a stronger, bigger human being than she is. He is a stranger demanding a certain type of attention -at least he sounds like- from her after following her in to some point she is alone.
"DEMANDING" a certain type of attention? Being asked for coffee isn't a demand for anything.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"She cannot know what he is thinking or really aim to do.
Welcome to life. You NEVER know what someone else is thinking or really aiming to do.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"And it's perfectly understandable that she is annoyed with that. Why is it a fucking big deal that she talked about it?
Nothing, if it ended there. What was inappropriate was when she turned the backlash against her patronizing vlog post into an anti-feminist campaign against her.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"QuoteA statement that she has, as of yet, not substantiated. Because I'm a fucking skeptic and have the damn gall to demand evidence to substantiate claims, esp. claims that an entire movement is festering with anti-feminism.
She is not made an accusation. She didn't claim that the man was after doing something harmful to her. She didn't claim he was attempting a crime. SHE JUST TOLD about her experience and WHY it made her uncomfortable. Do you get that?
:arrow: Do you have the basic intelligence to understand the difference between an accusation made and some anecdote given to express an uncomfortable experience? Do you?
Yes, and I
wasn't talking about the elevator exchange. I was talking about the online backlash and how that was indicative of an anti-feminist streak in the atheist movement.
That's the only thing I ask her to substantiate.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"QuoteYes. Thunderfoot. Maybe not the rape, but he was sexually harassed when some moron put his head on a nude male body and passed it around the internet. He only lost his shit with direct threats on his family.
Fair enough. Not surprising either. But think about the nature of threatening a woman with rape apart from all other threats some time will you?
The threat to Thunderfoot's family came in the form of publishing his particulars online with vague, but direct calls to action by the perpetrator (Dahwah Films, I think). And even then, nothing has come of it as yet. Thunderfoot communicated this with a short but stern warning, and last I heard that was the end of it: Dahwah backed down.
Again, threats of rape online are hard to take seriously, because hyperbole is the rule on the internet.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"QuoteSounds like a completely innocent encounter so far.
See above.
I have. I don't buy your explanation. I don't buy it one bit.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote"A few days later, I was making a video about the trip and I decided to use that as an example of how not to behave at conferences if you want to make women feel safe and comfortable." And here she goes off the rails.
I am not sure how that's going off the rails.
Speaking for all women, for one, instead of it being a personal discomfort. Treating it as some sort of 'teachable moment' is another. Rebecca's encounter is exactly how I would want to be approached, by being politely asked, and with the option to politely turn it down.
You have to realize that ALL social contact carries some risk. You are going to be approached by people who make you feel uncomfortable for one reason or another. It's not your fault, and it's not theirs, either. It's just life.
You have no right to go through life not feeling creepy in every encounter. Some encounters are
clearly threatening, and you can ask not to be allowed. Rebecca's encounter was not a clear threat — it was the most careful attempt to make social contact you could get at the moment, and bearing in mind the nature of the event, probably would be the fellow's last chance to make contact with Rebecca Watson during the event. It was worth the try, even if it wasn't successful. No lasting harm was felt by either party, and under normal circumstances would have been a non-event.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Why not, you are a mind reader yourself aren't you? Read your own your excuses produced by your cheap 'skepticism'. You are telling the exact thing you accuse her doing.
If you think that's what I'm doing, miss mind reader, then kindly go fuck yourself. The point was that Rebecca could NOT have know what the man was actually after, or know that the man knew that she had been up for 12 hours straight. The only thing Rebecca
knows is that the man tried to ask her to coffee.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"And that's exactly what she says actually. She says guys are like that and that it's not welcomed by most women in her opinion.
Again, Rebecca is projecting herself onto other women.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"What you are doing is setting your own arbitrary rules on how some certain male behaviour should be taken.
Like Rebecca Watson?
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"It's perfectly normal that she -or any other woman- didn't like the way he approached to her. This is as simple as this.
And it was settled with a single word of refusal from her, as simple as that.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Nobody has to proceed along with what's OK with you.
Or Rebecca Watson.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Yes it's a very teachable moment.
No, it wasn't.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"QuoteThat's why she got flamed. She pretended it was a teachable moment, and it was not. She pretended that it was especially creepy, when it was not.
Your mind is reading more than anyone else's.
Given the response, I'd say it's experimentally verified.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"It's not up to you or anyone else, what is creepy or not in a personal encounter with a stranger.
Yep, what's creepy to her need not be creepy to any other woman.
Rebecca has
no right at all to expect that her life would be free of all creepy encounters, because everyone's standard for creepiness is different. You will meet all manner of people in life, and some of them will seem creepy to you.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Mind reading again?
That's what usually happens with flamage.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"This time you are mind reading masses I suppose. WOW. What a hypocritical, self righteous fuck you are.
Go fuck yourself.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"A woman is talking about a personal experience that made her uncomfortable, she said 'guys don't do that' made a video about why she thinks that shouldn't be done.
And it was rejected.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"She is a useless, hostile cunt.
Her response to that resounding internet rejection makes her useless on feminist matters. The only person here calling someone a "hostile cunt" is you stuffing words into my mouth.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Millions of males
"Millions?" And how do you know they're males?
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"posting those psychopathic comments are just...you know...internet show.
Because that's what the internet is:
a big show.Quote from: "drunkenshoe"AND they don't represent anything at all. Right Hekurei?
It does. It shows that the internet is a festering cesspool of overly-hostile comments made by people shielded by their own anonymity, crave an audiance, and the loudest, most outragous and inflamitory speech wins. Has nothing to do with feminism, however.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"It should have no affect what so ever on an individual, who actually received these threads without the 'incidents' like this one with her routine, but I guess this is too much for your cheap skepticism to think that could be one of the reasons why she was uncomfortable in the first place with something you are not.
I expect someone with any internet presence at all to have at least observed that internet personas are not real-life personas, and most internet drama is not actually drama-worthy.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Oh and if she was so stern, firm and emotionless about all this threats or anything she writes, this time you would be writing about 'what a cold bitch that cunt is', 'certainly something is wrong with her'. I don't need to read your mind. You have been telling yourself.
And again, you stuff words into my mouth. Kindly go fuck yourself.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe""On reflection Dawkins decided..." Mind reading again or Dawkins is a personal acquaintance?
No, it was the clear point he was trying to make in his letter. It's called "subtext," that which is not clearly stated in black and white but readily inferred from the context of the letter.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Because right at this moment you managed to sound more stupid than everything your wrote above with your fantasy about some celebrity.
Only in your own mind.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Why didn't he write something reasonable on why he thought what she did was irresponsible, but instead he chose to humiliate another female poster from a muslim country with that?
"Muslima" was
obviously made up, even if her social conditions aren't, you fool. And sarcasm is a quite respectable and time-honored mode of criticism.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"QuoteYes, she was harassed by anonymous trolls, because they sensed a high-profile and easily-butthurt target. This is typical troll behavior, trying to get a rise out of Rebecca, their chosen target. When she fed them (and knowing her personality, she is exactly the type who would feed trolls), they reacted with glee and doubled down, because that's what trolls do.
Knowing her personality?
Listening to Rebecca shoot the breeze with her fellow SGUers for 300+ hour+ episodes, I think I have a good handle on her personality.
Anyway, I'm getting tired of trying to chop down all the strawman you're trying to set up, so I'm cutting it off here. The bottom line is that Rebecca turned her singular personally creepy encounter into something bigger than it was, was flamed for it, turned it into a real-life thing, and got burned for it. Encounters like Rebecca's are actually unavoidable in
any society with free association rights. You can't blame someone for approaching someone else, because that's how you make the transition from 'stranger' to 'aquaintance'. Conferences
are social events, and you are going to get people who want to approach you for all manner of purposes from picking your brains to, yes, having sex with you.
I don't believe for one bit that feminism in any way hurts men.
Promoting equality and ethical treatment of the female gender can't hurt men in any way. A real man isn't immasculated by treating women with respect.
That is all feminism is, treating women with respect in all phases of life.
If you have a problem with treating a women with respect than you are weak to begin with.
Normal feminism, which promotes equity and ethical treatment of women, is fine.
Radical militant feminism, which promotes the idea that men are rampaging beasts looking to have sex with women and can't behave civilly around women, is not, as it is anything but equality.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Normal feminism, which promotes equity and ethical treatment of women, is fine.
Radical militant feminism, which promotes the idea that men are rampaging beasts looking to have sex with women and can't behave civilly around women, is not, as it is anything but equality.
Unfortunately, the two are often conflated.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Are you seriously suggesting that "women and children first" is as urgent as fixing the rape epidemic? Something that happens in extreme situations versus something that happens a thousand times a day?
Being an "issue" doesn't give it equal priority.
You realize you're taking the most dramatic women's issue and comparing it to a relatively trifling men's issue and then using that comparison to justify ignoring everything except the stuff you care about, right?
Or do you really believe that the most urgent men's issue is no more grave than "women and children first"? If so then that explains a LOT.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Or do you really believe that the most urgent men's issue is no more grave than "women and children first"? If so then that explains a LOT.
If this is the best retort you can come up with, I'm not even going to bother.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Nonsensei"Or do you really believe that the most urgent men's issue is no more grave than "women and children first"? If so then that explains a LOT.
If this is the best retort you can come up with, I'm not even going to bother.
It wasn't a retort it was a question. I don't understand wtf you're thinking, and you are just fucking horrible at expressing yourself on this issue.
I'm pretty sure its because, in fact, you really don't give the slightest shit about any men's issues no matter what they are. But you feel like you will "lose" the discussion if you just admit that in plain English. So you come up with these vague, stupid analogies and comparisons so you can still sneer at the idea of men's issues being worth addressing without coming right out and doing so.
Tell me im wrong.
Or you know, just act like responding is beneath you. Again.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"It wasn't a retort it was a question. I don't understand wtf you're thinking, and you are just fucking horrible at expressing yourself on this issue.
Don't hold it in, tell us how you really feel. :roll:
Quote from: "Nonsensei"I'm pretty sure its because, in fact, you really don't give the slightest shit about any men's issues no matter what they are.
As a man who has combated male issues on multiple occasions in his personal life, this would be a rather odd stance for me to take. It's also rather presumptuous for you to assume that.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"But you feel like you will "lose" the discussion if you just admit that in plain English.
Or maybe it's because that is not my view on the matter, nor have I ever implied such. Do you really not understand the concept of priorities?
Quote from: "Nonsensei"So you come up with these vague, stupid analogies and comparisons so you can still sneer at the idea of men's issues being worth addressing without coming right out and doing so.
You have not explained why the expendable male is a trifling issue, nor given an example of what you believe constitutes a more serious one. In any case, I was opting for a well-known example rather than an equivalent one, as you have given me no reason to believe that you are at all versed in male issues. But even if I had used a more urgent example, the fact remains that
no male issue compares to the rape epidemic, and that's just a fact. That is unless you honestly believe that statistics like "one in three women are sexually assaulted" actually have an equivalent in the male side of things. (Which they don't.)
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Tell me im wrong.
You're wrong. 8-)
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Or you know, just act like responding is beneath you. Again.
If you honestly can't figure out why I might not feel the need to respond to strawman arguments, you should step out of this debate.
Quote from: "mykcob4"I don't believe for one bit that feminism in any way hurts men.
Promoting equality and ethical treatment of the female gender can't hurt men in any way.
It is because I believe in equality and ethical treatment of both genders that I refuse to refer to my beliefs as feminist.
1 in 3 women get sexually assaulted? Where? In some countries, in the western world, I even see statistics like 1 in 2 women will be sexually harassed in specific incidents before they turn 25. Either way, those numbers are HUGE and if they are accurate represents a huge problem. I try to stay out of debates like this because they tend to turn into an absolute shitfest (as seen above), but it is appalling that women get paid less than men in any job that they do. They are human, they complete the job, they should get paid the exact same rate as a man would based on how they completed that skill to the best of their abilities. People with certain skills should of course move up in the work chain but that should be based on skill alone and never gender.
Quote from: "frosty"1 in 3 women get sexually assaulted? Where?
I think it's probably closer to 3 in 3 women that will be spoken to in an elevator within their lifetimes.
Also, in Western Europe, how large is the pay gap for THE SAME work really?
The statistic that women get paid less for full time work on average is completely and utterly useless when determining fair pay for the same work as it is making the assumption that all work is exactly the same.
I'm not saying that the pay gap is non-existent, but wouldn't it be productive to actually quantify it properly? It is actually relatively difficult to find any sort of actual statistic properly measuring unfair pay for equal work given that it is such a big, controversial issue.
Quote1 in 3 women get sexually assaulted? Where? In some countries, in the western world, I even see statistics like 1 in 2 women will be sexually harassed in specific incidents before they turn 25. Either way, those numbers are HUGE and if they are accurate represents a huge problem.
I can relate my own personal experiences, and I've had two different random men jerk off in front of me when I was a girl walking down the street with friends, was felt up by a gross old uncle and another guy who was a friend of my grandmother's when I was very little, and was actually sexually assaulted as a teenager. That's not even counting the overt sexual harassment at work that's happened twice. I was raised in a wealthy suburb under fortunate circumstances-I can't imagine how it is for other women, only myself. I'd say it's a pretty real problem in the US.
QuoteI'm not saying that the pay gap is non-existent, but wouldn't it be productive to actually quantify it properly? It is actually relatively difficult to find any sort of actual statistic properly measuring unfair pay for equal work given that it is such a big, controversial issue.
I think it's because this is such a complicated sociocultural issue. It's hard to measure when women can be less assertive and self-promoting, among other factors.
Quote from: "Mermaid"Quote1 in 3 women get sexually assaulted? Where? In some countries, in the western world, I even see statistics like 1 in 2 women will be sexually harassed in specific incidents before they turn 25. Either way, those numbers are HUGE and if they are accurate represents a huge problem.
I can relate my own personal experiences, and I've had two different random men jerk off in front of me when I was a girl walking down the street with friends, was felt up by a gross old uncle and another guy who was a friend of my grandmother's when I was very little, and was actually sexually assaulted as a teenager. That's not even counting the overt sexual harassment at work that's happened twice. I was raised in a wealthy suburb under fortunate circumstances-I can't imagine how it is for other women, only myself. I'd say it's a pretty real problem in the US.
QuoteI'm not saying that the pay gap is non-existent, but wouldn't it be productive to actually quantify it properly? It is actually relatively difficult to find any sort of actual statistic properly measuring unfair pay for equal work given that it is such a big, controversial issue.
I think it's because this is such a complicated sociocultural issue. It's hard to measure when women can be less assertive and self-promoting, among other factors.
That seems extremely over the top if I may say so. I hear about such incidents as the one on the street happening once in a while but other than that, no. Probably because I live my own life and don't go looking for such stories to begin with. I would speculate that the oversexualization of society has a role to play in the awful skyrocketing of such incidents, but that would probably start another argument in itself in this over-opinionated and quite frankly hostile thread.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't over the top. I don't really think so though.
Jeez, Merms, that's awful.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"It is because I believe in equality and ethical treatment of both genders that I refuse to refer to my beliefs as feminist.
Well-said.
Quote from: "Mermaid"Quote1 in 3 women get sexually assaulted? Where? In some countries, in the western world, I even see statistics like 1 in 2 women will be sexually harassed in specific incidents before they turn 25. Either way, those numbers are HUGE and if they are accurate represents a huge problem.
I can relate my own personal experiences....
Unfortunately, when some men see the statistics and scoff and then a woman tells of her own personal experiences, they will say "well, that's just what happened to you, that doesn't happen to most women". I'm not saying the guys here are saying that, but I've been met with that response when I shared my own stories of sexual assault and harassment many times before. Hell, I was even told it was my fault. "Oh, it happened to you? Well, that was just you...it can't possibly happen to 1 in 3 women...that's crazy." Yeah. Yeah, it is. :|
I just shared that because I have to wonder how many women are out there who have had the same experiences. I think I've had my share, for sure. Fortunately I grew up relatively ok =P~ *eye twitch*
and am a pretty emotionally stable and happy person. But it makes me sad to think that if this is my story, how many other women share this and a lot worse? I think way too many.
I don't know what this has to do with feminism and this thread, though. Heh.
QuoteI think it's probably closer to 3 in 3 women that will be spoken to in an elevator within their lifetimes.
Holy. Shit.
So sexual assault is, "Meh, they probably were just spoken to in an elevator"...
Man, these threads can bring out the dark shit in people's closets.
Quote from: "Shiranu"QuoteI think it's probably closer to 3 in 3 women that will be spoken to in an elevator within their lifetimes.
Holy. Shit.
So sexual assault is, "Meh, they probably were just spoken to in an elevator"...
Man, these threads can bring out the dark shit in people's closets.
I took that as a euphemism, not literally.
Quote from: "Mermaid"Quote from: "Shiranu"QuoteI think it's probably closer to 3 in 3 women that will be spoken to in an elevator within their lifetimes.
Holy. Shit.
So sexual assault is, "Meh, they probably were just spoken to in an elevator"...
Man, these threads can bring out the dark shit in people's closets.
I took that as a euphemism, not literally.
If it was, then my bad. But given the rest of his post was, "Women really don't have it bad"... I am not sure...
Hm, rereading it, I can see what you mean.
Quote from: "Shiranu"QuoteI think it's probably closer to 3 in 3 women that will be spoken to in an elevator within their lifetimes.
Holy. Shit.
So sexual assault is, "Meh, they probably were just spoken to in an elevator"...
Man, these threads can bring out the dark shit in people's closets.
Have you read the thread at all? Or the other one specifically about that?
Clearly not.
(//http://i.imgur.com/N1t0F.jpg)
Quote from: "Mermaid"QuoteI'm not saying that the pay gap is non-existent, but wouldn't it be productive to actually quantify it properly? It is actually relatively difficult to find any sort of actual statistic properly measuring unfair pay for equal work given that it is such a big, controversial issue.
I think it's because this is such a complicated sociocultural issue. It's hard to measure when women can be less assertive and self-promoting, among other factors.
Well even ignoring those complications, why don't we use pay for the same job instead of average pay for one whole gender? Of course that measurement is still riddled with issues but it is at least an actual attempt to measure what you want to know.
The actual reason that statistic is not used is it paints a far less gloomy picture of equality, so sensationlist articles don't include it. It sounds far less outrageous than the large disparity between total average pay of males and females, even though that does not necessarily indicate unfairness.
QuoteHave you read the thread at all? Or the other one specifically about that?
Clearly not.
I hadn't, no. That's good to know then :P.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Well even ignoring those complications, why don't we use pay for the same job instead of average pay for one whole gender? Of course that measurement is still riddled with issues but it is at least an actual attempt to measure what you want to know.
The actual reason that statistic is not used is it paints a far less gloomy picture of equality, so sensationlist articles don't include it. It sounds far less outrageous than the large disparity between total average pay of males and females, even though that does not necessarily indicate unfairness.
Based on.....?
Where is this statistic?
Quote from: "Shiranu"QuoteHave you read the thread at all? Or the other one specifically about that?
Clearly not.
I hadn't, no. That's good to know then :P.
It was a satire of the small minority of posters who think that the woman who completely trashed a man's reputation and whipped up an absolute frenzy about him online because he asked her if she wanted to go for coffee was completely justified in her actions and that the man committed some sort of non-physical, undetectable sexual crime.
Here's a graph from 2009 based on occupation and field.
(//http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/US_Gender_Pay_Gap_by_industry_.001.png)
And here is a more comprehensive and specific report from 2012.
http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/t ... cupation-1 (http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-by-occupation-1)
Quote from: "Mermaid"Quote from: "SilentFutility"Well even ignoring those complications, why don't we use pay for the same job instead of average pay for one whole gender? Of course that measurement is still riddled with issues but it is at least an actual attempt to measure what you want to know.
The actual reason that statistic is not used is it paints a far less gloomy picture of equality, so sensationlist articles don't include it. It sounds far less outrageous than the large disparity between total average pay of males and females, even though that does not necessarily indicate unfairness.
Based on.....?
Where is this statistic?
Comparing total average pay of each gender across all jobs does not take into account how many hours people are working, nor how they are earning this money, nor the quality of the work that they are producing.
Let's consider a perfect world in which every employer paid the same amount of money per hour of the same work, regardless of gender. In other words, a totally fair world in which there was no disparity between the genders in terms of money per unit of work.
Immediately, if one gender works more hours on average than the other, then in this perfect world in which men and women are paid the same amount per hour of the exact same work, the gender that works more hours on average will have a higher average yearly salary. So under our completely fair conditions, one gender can be earning more on average.
Well, men do work more hours:
QuoteThe Department of Labor's Time Use survey shows that full-time working women spend an average of 8.01 hours per day on the job, compared to 8.75 hours for full-time working men. One would expect that someone who works 9% more would also earn more. This one fact alone accounts for more than a third of the wage gap.
Source (//http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048)
Now, in our totally fair world, someone whose job is more dangerous would earn more per hour than someone whose job carried little physical risk to compensate them for the risk they are undertaking. Well, workplace deaths are overwhelmingly inflicted upon men in the USA:
QuoteIn the United States, in 2005, men were 54% of the workforce but 93% of workers who died at work due to fatal accidents or violence (pdf link). (The raw numbers are 5300 men, 402 women).
Source (//http://amptoons.com/blog/2007/03/05/workplace-deaths-are-overwhelmingly-male/)
Likewise, the same can be said for previous work experience, education, performance-related bonuses and so on- even when there is no gender discrimination, they can still cause one gender to earn far more on average than the other, whilst still remaining completely fair. If, for example, men were doing far more STEM subject degrees than women, a gap in average pay across the whole gender would be expected, and they do.
So, the statistic "on average, women earn far less per year than men in total" actually does not indicate anything about fairness in terms of pay for the same work whatsoever.
QuoteA new survey from PayScale this morning finds that the wage gap nearly evaporates when you control for occupation and experience among the most common jobs, especially among less experienced workers. It is only as careers advance, they found, that men outpaced female earnings as they made their way toward the executive suite.[ Image (//http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%20Shot%202013-05-29%20at%203.32.18%20PM.png) ]
Source (//http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-biggest-myth-about-the-gender-wage-gap/276367/)
I am not trying to say that no pay discrimination exists; far from it. However, most mainstream media coverage and indeed most of the opinions shared via media by the general public on the topic are informed by a complete and fundamental lakc of understanding of very basic statistics. For reasons stated above along with many others, you cannot look at the statistic "men earn more on average than women in total across all jobs" and be assured that this is due to discrimination, and to continue to do so is intellectually dishonest, removing credibility from those who legitimately want to tackle the real issue, confusing the issue and sensationalist.
Quote from: "Mermaid"And here is a more comprehensive and specific report from 2012.
http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/t ... cupation-1 (http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-by-occupation-1)
Those right there are far more indicative statistics of inequality than total average pay across the whole gender, and was the type I was looking for but wasn't really having much luck finding, thank you.
Well we can churn our statistics all we like but what will actually be done to prevent such things from occurring on a massive scale? I'm not the typical definition of a liberal at all, in fact I'd say I'm not a liberal but rather a social centrist. To be honest since this forum has many users that identify as liberal I was expecting there to be an out pour of remarks saying society is not oversexualized, but since such things were not posted, I can only deduce that either that part of my post was ignored or people tacitly agree and are apathetic towards that specific point.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "Mermaid"And here is a more comprehensive and specific report from 2012.
http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/t ... cupation-1 (http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-by-occupation-1)
Those right there are far more indicative statistics of inequality than total average pay across the whole gender, and was the type I was looking for but wasn't really having much luck finding, thank you.
:)
Quote from: "mykcob4"I don't believe for one bit that feminism in any way hurts men.
Promoting equality and ethical treatment of the female gender can't hurt men in any way. A real man isn't immasculated by treating women with respect.
That is all feminism is, treating women with respect in all phases of life.
If you have a problem with treating a women with respect than you are weak to begin with.
I think the issue might be more nuanced than that, but the main aim should be egalitarian in it's nature, I agree with you.
Feminism should of course be for true equality of women in all scenarios, not the elevation of one gender over the other. But I've always thought that if women could truly rise above the stereotypes and expectations placed on them, and the negative behaviors they themselves commit, then women would probably dominate the planet. Of course we are all human and therefore have our limitations, but for women to go from being oppressed in one way to being viewed as sex objects in another it sort of brings the issue back full swing.
Theer are two types of feminists- Gender feminists and Liberal feminists. Liberal feminist want equality and should be supported. gender feminists are barking mad eveil wicthes and should be mercilessly mocked,derided and demonsied wherever possible.
Quote from: "sab"Theer are two types of feminists- Gender feminists and Liberal feminists. Liberal feminist want equality and should be supported. gender feminists are barking mad eveil wicthes and should be mercilessly mocked,derided and demonsied wherever possible.
Well that is a fair and balanced assessment. :lol:
Don't sugar coat it Sab!
Tell us what you really think!
Quote from: "frosty"But I've always thought that if women could truly rise above the stereotypes and expectations placed on them, and the negative behaviors they themselves commit, then women would probably dominate the planet.
So if all women never did a single thing wrong and were behaviorally perfect they'd dominate the planet?
Well, yeah...any human with completely and utterly perfect traits would rise to the top.
I'm not really sure what your point is other than "if women became perfect they'd be the best", which is obvious given that nobody is currently perfect.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "frosty"But I've always thought that if women could truly rise above the stereotypes and expectations placed on them, and the negative behaviors they themselves commit, then women would probably dominate the planet.
So if all women never did a single thing wrong and were behaviorally perfect they'd dominate the planet?
Well, yeah...any human with completely and utterly perfect traits would rise to the top.
I'm not really sure what your point is other than "if women became perfect they'd be the best", which is obvious given that nobody is currently perfect.
Not really. They can still be flawed, my point was that to go from being servants of men and then liberating themselves, to going back to being viewed as sex objects by modern society the struggle seems never ending. If they were to defeat this current hurdle I'm sure even the idea of sexual harassment against women and discrimination against women would be a complete thing of the past. But it seems females enjoy their spot in a consumerist, sex-oriented western paradise so I shouldn't disturb the peace.
Quote from: "sab"Theer are two types of feminists- Gender feminists and Liberal feminists. Liberal feminist want equality and should be supported. gender feminists are barking mad eveil wicthes and should be mercilessly mocked,derided and demonsied wherever possible.
(//http://i.imgur.com/BeZol.jpg)
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "sab"Theer are two types of feminists- Gender feminists and Liberal feminists. Liberal feminist want equality and should be supported. gender feminists are barking mad eveil wicthes and should be mercilessly mocked,derided and demonsied wherever possible.
[ Image (//http://i.imgur.com/BeZol.jpg) ]
[youtube:3mfiib1h]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQyqx1K495U[/youtube:3mfiib1h]
Quote from: "frosty"Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "frosty"But I've always thought that if women could truly rise above the stereotypes and expectations placed on them, and the negative behaviors they themselves commit, then women would probably dominate the planet.
So if all women never did a single thing wrong and were behaviorally perfect they'd dominate the planet?
Well, yeah...any human with completely and utterly perfect traits would rise to the top.
I'm not really sure what your point is other than "if women became perfect they'd be the best", which is obvious given that nobody is currently perfect.
Not really. They can still be flawed, my point was that to go from being servants of men and then liberating themselves, to going back to being viewed as sex objects by modern society the struggle seems never ending. If they were to defeat this current hurdle I'm sure even the idea of sexual harassment against women and discrimination against women would be a complete thing of the past. But it seems females enjoy their spot in a consumerist, sex-oriented western paradise so I shouldn't disturb the peace.
Are women in modern-day western society viewed as sex objects significantly more than men?
Granted, more of a fuss is made about them being viewed in this way, however it isn't like TV shows, films and advertising aren't chock-full of half-naked male models to be ogled at. Is the problem women being seen as sex objects, or is the problem sexualisation being an acceptable tool for selling things, gaining viewership etc. etc.?
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Are women in modern-day western society viewed as sex objects significantly more than men?
Granted, more of a fuss is made about them being viewed in this way, however it isn't like TV shows, films and advertising aren't chock-full of half-naked male models to be ogled at. Is the problem women being seen as sex objects, or is the problem sexualisation being an acceptable tool for selling things, gaining viewership etc. etc.?
My personal view? I would say the problem is both. "Sex sells" is probably one of the most correct and down to Earth sayings in history. Of course men are sexualised as well but women, I would say, are done far more frequently and in a far more abusive manner. I speculated a few pages back that over-sexualisation may have a role to play in this whole issue but that in itself is such a massive problem that I am not even going to try to pretend like I have the solution to it.
Quote from: "frosty"Quote from: "SilentFutility"Are women in modern-day western society viewed as sex objects significantly more than men?
Granted, more of a fuss is made about them being viewed in this way, however it isn't like TV shows, films and advertising aren't chock-full of half-naked male models to be ogled at. Is the problem women being seen as sex objects, or is the problem sexualisation being an acceptable tool for selling things, gaining viewership etc. etc.?
My personal view? I would say the problem is both. "Sex sells" is probably one of the most correct and down to Earth sayings in history. Of course men are sexualised as well but women, I would say, are done far more frequently and in a far more abusive manner. I speculated a few pages back that over-sexualisation may have a role to play in this whole issue but that in itself is such a massive problem that I am not even going to try to pretend like I have the solution to it.
Fair enough.
I also think it is ridiculous these days. Take a look at pop videos and all you have are mediocre idiots making sexual poses as close to naked as they dare go as that is what sells records en masse, not decent music.