double standards

[Johan]

Eh Johan, I described what is going on in the forum and you just did what you are trying to blame me with. I am saying we are getting treated this way here when we speak up about women's issues. And if you're not blind, I am sure you have seen it.

I have seen it. But here's where I disagree with you. You claim that these things happen simply because you have a vagina. Its a big conspiracy by the boys against the girls. I have no doubt that certain men do this here but I haven't seen where its the majority and here's why. When I disagree with you or state that I think you're being ridiculous, its because I disagree with you or its because I think you're being ridiculous. The fact that you have a vagina does not register with me in the least and does not factor in the forming of my opinion in the least. So if your perception is that there is some giant conspiracy against women here because they're women I won't argue with that as your perception is what it is and I doubt a jackass like me could ever change it. But I can tell you that my perception is different and I believe that's because I make every attempt to read each post without assigning gender or race or nationality to the author. Sometimes to a fault.

And because I say this out loud, 'it sucks being me'. When I say "I should shut up or accept this attitude and get along with it" 'it sucks being me'. Whatever I say or do about what's going on, 'it sucks being me'. Women should shut up. They are lovely that way. Or we can always blame then with something to get away with it anyways. Yes, no more 'it sucks being you'? I am sure there can be placed 4-5 more.

I haven't the slightest clue what you're trying to say here. And like I said above, that has nothing to do with your vagina. It has everything to do with the fact that the words in those sentences make no sense to me. Perhaps that language thing? Dunno but I'm pretty sure it isn't a vagina thing.

[Colanth]

Completely unfair. They could remove gender remark from those shelters. At least from some, but I guess men wouldn't want to stay there with women and women wouldn't want men?

In the women's shelters with which I'm familiar, men aren't allowed inside the door, other than (usually) a man who works there and the male children of the female residents.  If a man wants to help a woman carry something home, he can carry it to the outside door, but not inside.

This isn't considered sex discrimination, any more than a company not hiring male lingerie models would be.  It's necessary for the protection of the women.  It's too easy for the abusive husband or boyfriend to wait until the woman goes out for something, then apply for residence as a battered husband.  When she comes back he kills her.  And don't say that men rarely kill their wives - once is too often, but I've seen it happen quite a few times.

[Nonsensei]

Completely unfair. They could remove gender remark from those shelters. At least from some, but I guess men wouldn't want to stay there with women and women wouldn't want men?

In the women's shelters with which I'm familiar, men aren't allowed inside the door, other than (usually) a man who works there and the male children of the female residents.  If a man wants to help a woman carry something home, he can carry it to the outside door, but not inside.

This isn't considered sex discrimination, any more than a company not hiring male lingerie models would be.  It's necessary for the protection of the women.  It's too easy for the abusive husband or boyfriend to wait until the woman goes out for something, then apply for residence as a battered husband.  When she comes back he kills her.  And don't say that men rarely kill their wives - once is too often, but I've seen it happen quite a few times.

So essentially the safety of battered women is prioritized to such a degree that battered men are turned away at the door because they might secretly be faking it so they can murder a woman?

Sounds rational.

Actually it doesn't sound rational. It sounds like an extremely flimsy excuse to justify overt gender discrimination. No reason you cant just have separate male and female areas in the same shelter and make it so they don't ever mix.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Now when I saw the woman hitting the man, I felt sorry for the guy and a little embarrassed for him.  The big difference between the two is that the man probably could have physically defended himself and could have at least got away from the situation if his aggressor persisted, whereas the woman probably couldn't.

Except that cultural mores call for men to not hit women.

Granted, abusive men violate this standard.  But -- abusive women often take advantage of it.

Bottom line: no matter what is between your legs, if you must use violence or the threat of it to enforce your wishes, you have serious issues.

[Colanth]

So essentially the safety of battered women is prioritized to such a degree that battered men are turned away at the door because they might secretly be faking it so they can murder a woman?

Of women's shelters, yes.  Not from men's shelters.

Actually it doesn't sound rational. It sounds like an extremely flimsy excuse to justify overt gender discrimination.

As I said, as discriminatory as not hiring a man to model lingerie.

No reason you cant just have separate male and female areas in the same shelter and make it so they don't ever mix.

Or, even easier, have them in separate buildings - which is what they do.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Second, let me say, as a woman, that I am embarrassed by DrunkenShoe's continued raving outbursts.  It must make some of the guys around here really think woman ARE emotionally unstable.

Don't worry, I think most of us understand that she's, erm, a bit of a radical. :-D

[Shiranu]

Second, let me say, as a woman, that I am embarrassed by DrunkenShoe's continued raving outbursts.  It must make some of the guys around here really think woman ARE emotionally unstable.

Don't worry, I think most of us understand that she's, erm, a bit of a radical. :-D

Kinda like the guys who were implying feminists are out to castrate men? Or the ones that say, "Men have issues too, therefor its sexist to want to deal with women's problems!"? Or who think that feminists are vastly overstating women's issues in society?

I don't see what is groundbreakingly radical about finding that shit annoying after 5, 10, 20 threads.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Second, let me say, as a woman, that I am embarrassed by DrunkenShoe's continued raving outbursts.  It must make some of the guys around here really think woman ARE emotionally unstable.

Don't worry, I think most of us understand that she's, erm, a bit of a radical. :-D

Kinda like the guys who were implying feminists are out to castrate men? Or the ones that say, "Men have issues too, therefor its sexist to want to deal with women's problems!"? Or who think that feminists are vastly overstating women's issues in society?

I don't see what is groundbreakingly radical about finding that shit annoying after 5, 10, 20 threads.

Do I need to post a big old list of things I disapprove of so you'll stop accusing me of shit I neither say nor imply?

[Shiranu]

Do I need to post a big old list of things I disapprove of so you'll stop accusing me of shit I neither say nor imply?

No one is accusing you of those things, so I don't see any point in you doing so. Your certainly welcome to if you want to though.

You stated that she is "radical". I pointed out the trends on this forum that almost without fail will be brought up on any "feminist" thread and how annoying they become, and that I find those statements more radical than being annoyed by them and treating them like they are... absolute shit-tier remarks. I didn't see you earlier in this thread and unless you said any of those things I see no reason why you should assume they were directed at you.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I don't think that is about the subject alone.

It is, actually.

He has no idea what is going on around in the forum.

A conspiracy, clearly. :roll:

So the ridiculous thing is that him acting as if he knows members, their intentions and behaviors in the forum and deciding who is what.

Arrogant, presumptuous, generally unable to comprehend that I actually do know what I'm talking about most of the time, and you wonder why I think you're an arrogant ass.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

No one is accusing you of those things, so I don't see any point in you doing so. Your certainly welcome to if you want to though.

You stated that she is "radical". I pointed out the trends on this forum that almost without fail will be brought up on any "feminist" thread and how annoying they become, and that I find those statements more radical than being annoyed by them and treating them like they are... absolute shit-tier remarks. I didn't see you earlier in this thread and unless you said any of those things I see no reason why you should assume they were directed at you.

The fact that you brought them up seemed like enough implication to me.

Not that those things don't annoy me, but I'm very reluctant to speak up about them when someone like Shoe is going to come jump down my throat even if I agree with her. It makes me more inclined to go after the moron who's yelling at everyone instead of the morons who are being less, uh, dickish to me at the present moment. :-|

[Hijiri Byakuren]

He has no idea what is going on around in the forum.

A conspiracy, clearly. :roll:

No, I meant personal vendettas and relationships between members with that.

You are also horrible at detecting obvious sarcasm. :roll:

[Hijiri Byakuren]

You are also horrible at detecting obvious sarcasm. :roll:

And you're bad at deflecting.

Now I know you really don't read a damned thing I write. In case I haven't made it painfully obvious, I know exactly what is "going on" on this forum. I just don't give a shit beyond you consistently being an asshole to people like me who have nothing to do with your silly little forum drama. You bring your anger to me, lo and behold I tend to bite back. The sooner you figure out how to manage your temper, the sooner you'll realize I am actually on your side with most of these issues you debate about. Not sure if you noticed, but a number of those "thanks" you have are from me.

Until then, I am going to give myself carte blanche to continue calling you an asshole since, in fact, you are being an asshole. :-D

[Nonsensei]

Another thread derailed to be all about drunkenshoe. Just ignore her.

[SilentFutility]

The only time you see a man in a vacuum cleaner ad is when its that dude from Dyson talking about how awesome he is for being German and designing such an great product. But when they show the Dyson vacuum being used? Yeah, that would be a women using it. If I could change that, I would. But Germans tend to be douchebags about that sort of thing I really don't want to start carpet bombing Berlin again over it. Ok that's a joke and probably a bad one, but I think I've made my point.

Especially given that James Dyson was a British Designer and Inventor.

As for the rest of this thread, I'm not sure I want to be involved.