It isn't only the suggestion of under-agedness that troubles me, it's the idea that people are attracted to the idea of eating an ice cream cone that's been sprayed with wee...
Huh.
[m]http://youtu.be/P0t4ruBVxSA[/m]
Beating the summer heat Japanese style.
- Thread starter BillyBadAss
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Huh.
[m]http://youtu.be/P0t4ruBVxSA[/m]
And so they are too weak to even stand against a preconception. So weakened and belittled that there is no more fight in them; that in the long and storied history of human oppression, nobody has stood against the prevailing thought for what hey believe is right. This is where you put women and you come to their aid, like a man should.
Trying to think now, but who was it that titled their post in this thread "grow a pair"? Maybe they meant breasts?
This thread is seriously short on researched information and knowledge and far too long on hearsay and (regurgitated), ill-conceived opinion. Thinking traps snare them all in the end. Its easy living in other people's ideas, particularly when you haven't formed your own. Critical thinking starts at home.
Rock on Internet.
Last edited:
And so they are too weak to even stand against a preconception. So weakened and belittled that there is no more fight in them; that in the long and storied history of human oppression, nobody has stood against the prevailing thought for what hey believe is right. This is where you put women and you come to their aid, like a man should.
I'm not "coming to their aid," I'm just refuting gopostal's truly idiotic talking points.
It has absolutely nothing to do about weakness on the part of women and everything to do with how society expects them to be. And I'm not saying that they need to be "rescued," I'm saying that equality between them is possible. Did you even bother reading what I said, or are you just putting words into my mouth?
You're basically accusing me of being a white knight. There's nothing "white knight" about refuting ignorance. When I see someone say something as stupid as "women live easier lives" without even trying to explain why, I get mad. Statements like that are based purely in ignorance and, when you don't even try to back it up, it's just pure laziness.
Particularly from gopostal.
You have yet to contribute anything of value. Judging by how you haven't criticized some of gopostal's more ignorant statements and haven't even tried to address a single one of my points, it would seem like you're the one who's being "ridiculous, reactionary and ignorant." Do you even have anything to say in this thread, and if not, why are you even bothering to post? Because so far, you haven't even given an opinion. I can guess what that opinion is, but you're not giving me a whole lot to work with.
Last edited:
The post at that site is simply a wrapper for the facts that were culled from DOL stats. Every single AVFM opinion in that article can be ignored as far as I'm concerned, I only need to use the facts from it.
So in essence You can't/won't 'waste' time with sources and facts? I'm not interested in arguing opinions with you since neither of us will obviously alter a single thing the other thinks. Post me up a fact-filled rebuttal or stop wasting everyone's time with emotional appeal. You argue like a woman
(do I even need to add that this is very tongue in cheek?)No, you are adding your opinion to a fact. When I order at McDonalds I'm looked at as an object (number 33 in line). Does that mean I'm being dominated? How someone views you does not EVER equal domination over you. This appeals to you emotionally and so you add to a simple equation making it much more nuanced that it has to be.
By and large they very much do because it just doesn't affect them directly. Men don't sit around drinking beer and discussing LGBT issues at the pub because they just mostly don't care. Make it something that affects them daily (work, weather, kids) and it's always discussed (and acted upon if needed).
It doesn't. They go to college for the same amount of time, work just as hard, and end up with jobs that pay less. Check this little graphic out:
Women overwhelmingly choose jobs that require less brainpower and so they pay less. Yeah, I know this is controversial but it's also the truth.
OFC I make more money than her, I'm a man (more joke, calm down). She's way better off because she chose that career. It's her dream to work with low-functioning/autistic kids and she's damn good at it. My job is robotic and with very little challenge. Rate-of-pay is not the single arbiter of 'who has it best'. I can never leave my job because the benefits and pay are just too good. It's the best for all my family. I don't hate it but she's certainly much better off.
Who's fault is that? You know you are painting things like women have no responsibility and that this entirely rests on men. You know why you are arguing this? Because men run things. It's hard to get away from, isn't it?
Google:
<any country> road crew
<any country> sanitation worker
<any country> construction worker
then hit IMAGES. That's why women live easier lives. It's (overwhelmingly) not them working in 110 degree heat in the open sun pouring the roads, hanging off the iron of a high rise, or shoveling the dead animals off the road.
You and three girls are driving home from the pub. You get a flat tire. Who gets to do the changing while who gets to sit in the car? Doesn't even matter who owns the car either. You are expected to do the work because 'you are the man'. If one of the women said "No, it's cool. I got this," you'd be seriously impressed and THIS is where equality lies.
I'll be here all week folks. Tip your waiters and waitresses and try the veal!
Like I already said, men don't ignore those social movements. You keep saying they do, but you ignored the fact that, yes, men make up significant opposition to these movements. Men not discussing other issues at a bar is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. When people go out and campaign or vote against something, they aren't ignoring it. LGBT issues don't directly affect most men; men aren't losing any rights, others are gaining rights on par with the most powerful group. And yet there are men who go out of their ways to vilify people for daring to ask for the same rights they have. If men actually ignored the issues like you claim they do, there would be no opposition movements with men in them.
This is a completely nonsensical example. Being viewed as a customer is completely different from being viewed as a sex object. When you go up to the line and order something, you're being a customer. You chose to buy the double cheeseburger with fries and a coke. It's not so easy for women. They don't get to go up to a line and say, "Hi, I would like to be viewed as an equal in society." Customers get to choose what they buy. Women don't get to choose how society views them.
The the bulk of society holds certain views of you, and you are treated according to those views. IE, in America, black people have been seen as unintelligent and lazy due to stereotypes that reach back to the country's founding. These societal views still exist to this day even though they were only created to justify slavery. The Rick Santorums and Ronald Reagans of the world claim that black people are lazy freeloaders who are stealing white people's money, and they treat them as such based on stereotypes that are years old and have long since been proven false. Ignorant, stupid people still listen to the Rick Santorums and Ronald Reagans, and that, in turn affects how they treat others. How Group A views Group B affects how Group A treats Group B. I don't know how I can make it any easier for you to understand. This is super simple stuff that I learned in the fifth grade; it shouldn't be difficult to grasp at all.
This:
Conflicts with this:
You're acting as though women are at fault for choosing certain careers, but then you ignore that men are choosing to go into manual labor jobs.
So let me get this straight: pain during childbirth, being charged with most domestic tasks and not getting compensated, getting paid less for the same work, and getting saddled with most of the responsibility for child-rearing is less difficult than getting paid doing a manual labor job? Road crews, sanitation workers, construction workers all chose their jobs, correct? If you're going to emphasize the role of personal choice in women's careers, don't suddenly ignore it when it comes to men just because it's convenient to your argument. To paraphrase you, those workers are better off because they made a choice. But then, their lives are difficult (as you believe them to be) because they made a deliberate choice to live difficult lives.
As previously mentioned, boys and girls are raised differently. That upbringing affects how they make their life choices. Men and women are pushed into certain roles without even realizing it.
Men being expected to do hard labor tasks is a problem, there's no denying that. But it's a result of the same system that forces women into doing all of the domestic labor. Men are expected to be strong from birth, and if they don't meet society's expectations, there's going to be a certain amount of backlash. You've pointed out that women choose careers that require less brainpower, and have argued that it's their fault thinks aren't changing in their favor for this very reason. Could it not be said that men choose careers that involve heavy manual labor? If men don't want to have to be the ones who are primarily involved in labor, couldn't they choose to do something else? If women are at fault for not affecting positive change by choosing poor careers, the same can be said for men who choose to do manual labor for a living. Using your line of thought, if they don't like the fact that they are expected to be the stronger ones, they can change that (but they're not, so it's their fault).
But let's take your example. Hypothetically, a man has to get out and change the tire. If the other tires are still in good condition, that only happens in one day. The women in that car, on the other hand, will be saddled with doing the housework every week. A man having to change a tire once in a while is not even close to the same amount of labor as a women doing housework and taking care of the kids. At least the men working in 110 degree weather get paid for their work. Women don't get paid for a lot of the work they do; that's why it's called unpaid labor.
Personally, I would be more impressed with a couple evenly (really evenly) splitting up the domestic work for every week of every month of every year than I would be with a woman changing a flat tire. There's something very wrong when, even in supposedly equal relationships, women have to do more of the domestic work than men.
This is a fantastic example of the pot calling the kettle black.
AlCapowned shouldn't even need to post sources for you because a lot of this stuff he's saying is elementary to high school level. You keep saying that men ignore certain social movements. You have been presented with a number of well-known counterexamples. You ignore them. Ignoring things that have actually happened is one of the greatest emotional responses there is. You haven't even addressed the bulk of any of the presented counterarguments. You hide behind phrases like "character assassination" and "messenger not message" while ignoring the rebuttals to your argument
And since I forgot to address a point in one of your last posts:
At least that brings attention to the issue. That's far superior to telling people "Nothing's ever going to change, so why even try?" As I said before, that's the same kind of thing that has been told to minority groups time and time again. But look what happened: things changed. Women got the right to vote, divorce laws were liberalized, and so on and so forth. The Civil Rights movement succeeded in ending the more blatant forms of oppression against African Americans. LGBT organizations have made enormous strides towards equality. If these social movements could succeed, men and women being on an equal footing some day could very well be a reality. Don't deny the possibility just because it would take a long time.
I guess that rules you out.
If you're so concerned about finding the root cause of gender inequality, why aren't you bothering to read works from sociologists who have done extensive research on the matter (especially when compared to you)? Most of the answers are already out there, but you're still trying to justify your preconceived notions by assigning blame to women for their gender roles even though, again, there are lots of people out there who have put far more thought into it than you have.
Last edited:
Ok then.
First get the image of a black-eyed woman, cowering shakily in the corner in fear of her abusive husband out of your mind. This is a separate issue - one of domestic violence - iin which men will typically have the physical advantage. And the courts are firmly on the women's side in this issue, so they have the full blessing of the legal system to take their man to the cleaners and get him put away in jail. If then you choose to argue that they haven't the mental will or have been broken into submission, we then that is simply re-enforcing the fact that men and women are not the same psychologically either, a self-defeating premise for feminists. Society has made almost as many options as is possible for an abused woman; if they haven't the will to exercise any of those options, then that is their problem and again, quite a separate discussion.
So, clear your mind of conflated debates and issues which feminism has seen to creating in order to strengthen what is becoming a clearly confused debate. My bottom line position is that first, women should have all of the economic and social opportunities as men and be treated equally socially and politically (which by definition makes me a "feminist" as well). Perhaps then we should at the outset make the distinction between "radical" feminist and "feminist". Just as radical (insert group name here) are rarely of service to any fruitful discussion, then I suppose many of my comments that will follow are indeed about the "radical" individual who has tainted the waters for all of us.
Each gender views one another as sexual objects because we are. Equity will never address the penis and vagina issue, the impregnate vs. pregnant issue, the huge gap in physical prowess between the genders nor the fact that evidence largely points to the idea that women don't want to surrender their sexuality and all that entails. If we didn't view one another as sexual objects, then copulation - the human race - might not flourish. Men and women are different, physiologically, mentally and emotionally. To say that one gender is 'under the heel' of another is hyperbole, which both sides of the debate regularly engage in, but it is indeed hyperbole. Even if it isn't, then we need to see that it is an idea, a stance or social convention, which, if women are all they claim they can be, we needn't worry about. History has shown us that the human spirit in the face of oppression can and will prevail and thus, I put no less stock in women. If their ideas are part and parcel correct, it will emerge as such. However, after 50 years of feminism, one has to wonder if things have emerged already, but feminists simply don't like that answer. An answer by the way, that apparently the majority of women have reached and are fine with.
Because neither party really wants equity, they want domination. Men are provoked into the issue by radical feminism which threatens their basic rights, paradoxically in the same manner in which feminists claim to have been ostracized. Many men are wrong in the debate, but if we are the same - men and women - then were can assume the reverse is also true. If those types of men are a threat and need to be met in debate, then so too are the women a threat and also need to be dealt with. I see a feminist and a misogynist as being more or less the same in that regard. Extremists exist to motivate moderates to open civil discourse, much like our "grow a pair" member has done. You are emerging from this discussion as a bit extreme and thus my initial post chiding you. I find most of your arguments and tenets to be unreasonable and ill-conceived. In that way, I will not throw any more pearls down here after this post. You can lead a man to rationality but you can't make him use it.
Women are choosing these career paths, and apparently it comes down to the psychological differences between the sexes. It turns out that women don't want the jobs that men do. And if they do, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from doing it. If you choose to fall back on the ‘they face too much opposition when entering these career paths”, then I have to ask what then do they expect? That these things will change without people to make it happen? Would any oppressive scenario change without sacrifice by a few for the good of the many? No, and if women see these barriers as first existing and second as being truly formidable, then some of them are going to have to sacrifice to enact change. What’s that? Many have yet things remain largely the same? Well then one might well conclude that it is a minority of women who even want these changes; there is ample evidence that women don’t see these things as problematic because they are not interested in the types of professions where they claim this exists.
So why did she choose that career path? If money was the goal, then she made a mistake, one that any amount of research would have quickly revealed. Turns out that men go for money while women go for deeper meaning in their work. Is someone to blame for that or is it again, just the differences between the sexes? Physically intensive jobs are simply not chosen by women. Look at law or government where the numbers reveal almost total equity if you want an example of professions that both sexes want equally. Maths and science differences come down to both interest and confidence; we can make efforts to alleviate the latter, but if they don’t want to do those jobs then they won’t, and we should stop using that as a metric of oppression because it isn’t. It is their choice and if we believe in equity and rights, then they should be free to make those choices without becoming a statistic wielded in a manner that has no true reflection on the problem for which they are being used.
So rise above. Again, change won’t happen without action, so taking your books and going home only to whine about how tough it is reveals apathy and that will change nothing. Being told something does not equate to be restricted from it; I know that chicken nuggets will kill me, but nobody is stopping me from eating them every day. Are the companies that make these killer foods genocidal? Are tobacco companies responsible for people smoking? Nope. That is just passing the buck and an example of people not taking responsibility for themselves. Women have these career choices at their disposal and if they choose not to engage, it is not a male problem. Heck, it isn’t even a problem, since it is their decision. Yet people time and time again pull out these statistics as having a more profound meaning, one that relates specifically to gender issues, like men are actually stopping women from entering these paths, which is a fallacy.
Sorry, but this needs to be cited. There is way too much in here that is just anecdotal (and sexist in and of itself: your thinking) and really doesn’t deserve a reply. Unintended pregnancy takes two: if women want sex but not a child, there are myriad ways to make this happen. They should be blamed for being perhaps irresponsible, as should the man. As for not being paid for their work, well that statement is just too vacuous to even try to answer. I would counter by asking what you call “work” and for that “work”, what is a reasonable method of compensation? For both sexes as well; many men do clean, cook and wash and if we are talking equity, then that needs to be included in the discussion. As for childbirth pain, blame God. Sorry you are a woman who chose to have a child. Get a C-section or spinal anesthetic; those are realistic and entirely suitable options to avert the pain. Also, let’s not go too far here: being a man is no picnic either, despite what the feminist ethos would have us believe. They act like the world is waiting for us to simply pick it up and enjoy the fruits…a ridiculous implication, one that you seem to have bought into wholesale.
No. Again, we see a great deficiency in delineating both issue and the syntax/semantics used to describe these scenarios. “easier”, “work” and “acceptance” are ambiguous here at best and until the terms have parameters assigned, no discussion can take place.
Mean averages take care of those freaks who base jump from 100 meters and they still illustrate that women do live longer than men. While I am not ready to ascribe that to the “ease” (whatever that might mean) of their lives, but just physiology. The “women live longer which proves that men are worked to death” argument has been largely left behind by thinking, rational people on both sides because it is simply not provable.
Yet, after 50 years, it is a reasonable assumption and one that anyone who is truly enlightened to the differences between men and women would make. Was racism eradicated with emancipation? Has any large-scale change in society completely wiped out opposing views? It is childish folly to expect that it would or ever will. Things are beginning to even out by now regarding equity. That women are not making the choices that the feminists want is the thorn in their sides and the reason things will never change, though in reality, things have changed drastically…but not to the extent that a minority envisioned. Why? Because women are different and don’t want the same things that men do in all situations. Feminists blame women who want to stay home and raise the kids, branding them as ‘slaves’ or some other hyperbolic label when in fact – if the feminists are interested in equity and rights (which they are not: as I said before they are interested in domination and anyone who doesn’t act on their tenets is ‘wrong) then they would let women make their own choices without being labeled as weak or otherwise inferior (or as being ‘against the cause’). Women get a lot of backroom crap thrown at them from feminists as well. "Pro-lifers" - who have a high correlation/relationship with feminism/feminists - claim it is their body and they alone can make the decision to keep or abort, yet after that decision - if it is to keep the child - then they are spoken of in pejoratives if they choose to simply stay home and raise the child. Hypocrisy at its finest, from one woman to another.
“Instilling defeatism” assumes that those at whom comments are directed are weak and frail and are without the ability to just ignore them and move on. Do racists make blacks feel bad about themselves or might they motivate them to prove them wrong? The weak will be weak, while the strong will prevail. And I for one have faith that women can and will find equity without my help. Now, "help" here means this type of lip service. I refuse to go out with bullhorns and placards because I don't believe in the problem deeply enough and - as I am a very liberal and forward-thinking man - have faith that they can handle it without me. So long as I am not doing anything to stop them and have an open mind and am willing to embrace true equity, I am satisfied that I am doing all they need me to do.
And that takes me to my initial response to your post. I didn’t accuse you only of being some kind of savior to women but also your implication that they even need your help at all. Your lip service here is cheap and does nothing. Your post implies that women are weak and frail and that they can’t handle themselves in a debate (intellectual, not physical. Nobody is boxing for rights here) while mine is that they are fine and can take care of themselves. I am not standing in their way in any sense and I suspect that the vast majority of men are not consciously doing anything to try to keep women down. Quite the contrary I believe; men are more aware than ever of equity and try to make changes in themselves. I see it around me every day here in Korea – a very make-dominated society but with a woman president – young people are thinking about things and changes are coming to Korea. Yes, it is way behind the West, but I am not so sure the West is on the right path anyways, so it is just as well that many countries in the world who take their leads from the West have a time buffer; when things don’t work out, they have recourse to change directions. And things won’t work out for the feminists; it is a doomed scenario which takes me to my ultimate position on this issue: the entire premise is flawed. This is not about equity it is a fight for domination. Average men don’t want to relinquish more than true equity would demand while feminists want it all for themselves. I am not sure that most men even understand what more needs to be done; it is a systemic problem that needs to filter upwards; at a grassroots level things are moving along fine. Individually we are nice, collectively we are nasty; I believe this is a principle of humanity. Women are their own worst enemy in a sense; they don’t even know exactly what they want. The latest wave of feminism has taken the cause up for the gay community as well, quite illustrative of a fractured and lost value system and of an ethos that has gone off the rails.
Well, that is enough from me. I will leave you with some links that are quite ‘readable’; no academic papers or the like (which I will be happy to link you to if you are so inclined, though many of these papers are behind a paywall that only either money or academic institutional benefit will reveal). However, you know how to use Google Scholar, so I will assume you can sort it out. Admittedly, some of these links are as unsubstantiated as your post and worth no more credence, but nonetheless I assume you can – if you are inclined – do your own research.
Add-on Edit: If I appear condescending in my closing, I apologize in advance, I don't mean to come off that way at all. For background, I am in Linguistics, doing my PhD in cognition and language acquisition, a field that is quite equitable in terms of gender. I have had occasion to discuss this topic with many peers, of both genders and do believe my view is balanced and rational. I have yet to have a female colleague take me to task after articulating these very thoughts to them, so I again believe myself to be on solid ethical and academic ground. I am not above reproach of course, and I am not preempting opposition, but I should hope that anything more that comes up has some credible meat on its metaphoric bones.
http://www.uab.edu/uabmagazine/breakthroughs/outreach/gender-equity-in-math-and-science
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...201104/why-dont-women-ask-men-out-first-dates
http://open.salon.com/blog/artlouis/2011/09/13/what_do_women_want_hint_its_not_equality
http://storylineblog.com/2012/10/30/like-equals-or-like-men/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/...-war-on-mens-rights-after-protest-in-detroit/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/17/1314436/--I-Don-t-Need-Feminism-Because-I-Support-Equality
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-561159/Why-women-dont-want-jobs-feminist.html
http://www.collegian.com/2013/09/do-women-want-chivalry-or-equality/41618/
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/americas-changing-workforce.pdf
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/life/10286103/Modern-feminism-do-women-have-equality
https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/21309-hymowitz-do-women-really-want-equality
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/s...ams-find-success-then-draw-ire.html?_r=2&hpw&
http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/04/do-women-really-want-equality/
A good talk on the topic (mainly about Nigerian society, but she makes some salient points):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg3umXU_qWc
And just for another view:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-LCohouNDc
As for the initial post’s picture, that is hilarious. I would love to see the same with a male; people pull his nuts to get a beverage dispensed from a huge phallus. Good stuff. Feminist have no sense of humor.
First get the image of a black-eyed woman, cowering shakily in the corner in fear of her abusive husband out of your mind. This is a separate issue - one of domestic violence - iin which men will typically have the physical advantage. And the courts are firmly on the women's side in this issue, so they have the full blessing of the legal system to take their man to the cleaners and get him put away in jail. If then you choose to argue that they haven't the mental will or have been broken into submission, we then that is simply re-enforcing the fact that men and women are not the same psychologically either, a self-defeating premise for feminists. Society has made almost as many options as is possible for an abused woman; if they haven't the will to exercise any of those options, then that is their problem and again, quite a separate discussion.
So, clear your mind of conflated debates and issues which feminism has seen to creating in order to strengthen what is becoming a clearly confused debate. My bottom line position is that first, women should have all of the economic and social opportunities as men and be treated equally socially and politically (which by definition makes me a "feminist" as well). Perhaps then we should at the outset make the distinction between "radical" feminist and "feminist". Just as radical (insert group name here) are rarely of service to any fruitful discussion, then I suppose many of my comments that will follow are indeed about the "radical" individual who has tainted the waters for all of us.
Each gender views one another as sexual objects because we are. Equity will never address the penis and vagina issue, the impregnate vs. pregnant issue, the huge gap in physical prowess between the genders nor the fact that evidence largely points to the idea that women don't want to surrender their sexuality and all that entails. If we didn't view one another as sexual objects, then copulation - the human race - might not flourish. Men and women are different, physiologically, mentally and emotionally. To say that one gender is 'under the heel' of another is hyperbole, which both sides of the debate regularly engage in, but it is indeed hyperbole. Even if it isn't, then we need to see that it is an idea, a stance or social convention, which, if women are all they claim they can be, we needn't worry about. History has shown us that the human spirit in the face of oppression can and will prevail and thus, I put no less stock in women. If their ideas are part and parcel correct, it will emerge as such. However, after 50 years of feminism, one has to wonder if things have emerged already, but feminists simply don't like that answer. An answer by the way, that apparently the majority of women have reached and are fine with.
Because neither party really wants equity, they want domination. Men are provoked into the issue by radical feminism which threatens their basic rights, paradoxically in the same manner in which feminists claim to have been ostracized. Many men are wrong in the debate, but if we are the same - men and women - then were can assume the reverse is also true. If those types of men are a threat and need to be met in debate, then so too are the women a threat and also need to be dealt with. I see a feminist and a misogynist as being more or less the same in that regard. Extremists exist to motivate moderates to open civil discourse, much like our "grow a pair" member has done. You are emerging from this discussion as a bit extreme and thus my initial post chiding you. I find most of your arguments and tenets to be unreasonable and ill-conceived. In that way, I will not throw any more pearls down here after this post. You can lead a man to rationality but you can't make him use it.
Women are choosing these career paths, and apparently it comes down to the psychological differences between the sexes. It turns out that women don't want the jobs that men do. And if they do, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from doing it. If you choose to fall back on the ‘they face too much opposition when entering these career paths”, then I have to ask what then do they expect? That these things will change without people to make it happen? Would any oppressive scenario change without sacrifice by a few for the good of the many? No, and if women see these barriers as first existing and second as being truly formidable, then some of them are going to have to sacrifice to enact change. What’s that? Many have yet things remain largely the same? Well then one might well conclude that it is a minority of women who even want these changes; there is ample evidence that women don’t see these things as problematic because they are not interested in the types of professions where they claim this exists.
So why did she choose that career path? If money was the goal, then she made a mistake, one that any amount of research would have quickly revealed. Turns out that men go for money while women go for deeper meaning in their work. Is someone to blame for that or is it again, just the differences between the sexes? Physically intensive jobs are simply not chosen by women. Look at law or government where the numbers reveal almost total equity if you want an example of professions that both sexes want equally. Maths and science differences come down to both interest and confidence; we can make efforts to alleviate the latter, but if they don’t want to do those jobs then they won’t, and we should stop using that as a metric of oppression because it isn’t. It is their choice and if we believe in equity and rights, then they should be free to make those choices without becoming a statistic wielded in a manner that has no true reflection on the problem for which they are being used.
So rise above. Again, change won’t happen without action, so taking your books and going home only to whine about how tough it is reveals apathy and that will change nothing. Being told something does not equate to be restricted from it; I know that chicken nuggets will kill me, but nobody is stopping me from eating them every day. Are the companies that make these killer foods genocidal? Are tobacco companies responsible for people smoking? Nope. That is just passing the buck and an example of people not taking responsibility for themselves. Women have these career choices at their disposal and if they choose not to engage, it is not a male problem. Heck, it isn’t even a problem, since it is their decision. Yet people time and time again pull out these statistics as having a more profound meaning, one that relates specifically to gender issues, like men are actually stopping women from entering these paths, which is a fallacy.
Sorry, but this needs to be cited. There is way too much in here that is just anecdotal (and sexist in and of itself: your thinking) and really doesn’t deserve a reply. Unintended pregnancy takes two: if women want sex but not a child, there are myriad ways to make this happen. They should be blamed for being perhaps irresponsible, as should the man. As for not being paid for their work, well that statement is just too vacuous to even try to answer. I would counter by asking what you call “work” and for that “work”, what is a reasonable method of compensation? For both sexes as well; many men do clean, cook and wash and if we are talking equity, then that needs to be included in the discussion. As for childbirth pain, blame God. Sorry you are a woman who chose to have a child. Get a C-section or spinal anesthetic; those are realistic and entirely suitable options to avert the pain. Also, let’s not go too far here: being a man is no picnic either, despite what the feminist ethos would have us believe. They act like the world is waiting for us to simply pick it up and enjoy the fruits…a ridiculous implication, one that you seem to have bought into wholesale.
No. Again, we see a great deficiency in delineating both issue and the syntax/semantics used to describe these scenarios. “easier”, “work” and “acceptance” are ambiguous here at best and until the terms have parameters assigned, no discussion can take place.
Mean averages take care of those freaks who base jump from 100 meters and they still illustrate that women do live longer than men. While I am not ready to ascribe that to the “ease” (whatever that might mean) of their lives, but just physiology. The “women live longer which proves that men are worked to death” argument has been largely left behind by thinking, rational people on both sides because it is simply not provable.
Yet, after 50 years, it is a reasonable assumption and one that anyone who is truly enlightened to the differences between men and women would make. Was racism eradicated with emancipation? Has any large-scale change in society completely wiped out opposing views? It is childish folly to expect that it would or ever will. Things are beginning to even out by now regarding equity. That women are not making the choices that the feminists want is the thorn in their sides and the reason things will never change, though in reality, things have changed drastically…but not to the extent that a minority envisioned. Why? Because women are different and don’t want the same things that men do in all situations. Feminists blame women who want to stay home and raise the kids, branding them as ‘slaves’ or some other hyperbolic label when in fact – if the feminists are interested in equity and rights (which they are not: as I said before they are interested in domination and anyone who doesn’t act on their tenets is ‘wrong) then they would let women make their own choices without being labeled as weak or otherwise inferior (or as being ‘against the cause’). Women get a lot of backroom crap thrown at them from feminists as well. "Pro-lifers" - who have a high correlation/relationship with feminism/feminists - claim it is their body and they alone can make the decision to keep or abort, yet after that decision - if it is to keep the child - then they are spoken of in pejoratives if they choose to simply stay home and raise the child. Hypocrisy at its finest, from one woman to another.
“Instilling defeatism” assumes that those at whom comments are directed are weak and frail and are without the ability to just ignore them and move on. Do racists make blacks feel bad about themselves or might they motivate them to prove them wrong? The weak will be weak, while the strong will prevail. And I for one have faith that women can and will find equity without my help. Now, "help" here means this type of lip service. I refuse to go out with bullhorns and placards because I don't believe in the problem deeply enough and - as I am a very liberal and forward-thinking man - have faith that they can handle it without me. So long as I am not doing anything to stop them and have an open mind and am willing to embrace true equity, I am satisfied that I am doing all they need me to do.
And that takes me to my initial response to your post. I didn’t accuse you only of being some kind of savior to women but also your implication that they even need your help at all. Your lip service here is cheap and does nothing. Your post implies that women are weak and frail and that they can’t handle themselves in a debate (intellectual, not physical. Nobody is boxing for rights here) while mine is that they are fine and can take care of themselves. I am not standing in their way in any sense and I suspect that the vast majority of men are not consciously doing anything to try to keep women down. Quite the contrary I believe; men are more aware than ever of equity and try to make changes in themselves. I see it around me every day here in Korea – a very make-dominated society but with a woman president – young people are thinking about things and changes are coming to Korea. Yes, it is way behind the West, but I am not so sure the West is on the right path anyways, so it is just as well that many countries in the world who take their leads from the West have a time buffer; when things don’t work out, they have recourse to change directions. And things won’t work out for the feminists; it is a doomed scenario which takes me to my ultimate position on this issue: the entire premise is flawed. This is not about equity it is a fight for domination. Average men don’t want to relinquish more than true equity would demand while feminists want it all for themselves. I am not sure that most men even understand what more needs to be done; it is a systemic problem that needs to filter upwards; at a grassroots level things are moving along fine. Individually we are nice, collectively we are nasty; I believe this is a principle of humanity. Women are their own worst enemy in a sense; they don’t even know exactly what they want. The latest wave of feminism has taken the cause up for the gay community as well, quite illustrative of a fractured and lost value system and of an ethos that has gone off the rails.
Well, that is enough from me. I will leave you with some links that are quite ‘readable’; no academic papers or the like (which I will be happy to link you to if you are so inclined, though many of these papers are behind a paywall that only either money or academic institutional benefit will reveal). However, you know how to use Google Scholar, so I will assume you can sort it out. Admittedly, some of these links are as unsubstantiated as your post and worth no more credence, but nonetheless I assume you can – if you are inclined – do your own research.
Add-on Edit: If I appear condescending in my closing, I apologize in advance, I don't mean to come off that way at all. For background, I am in Linguistics, doing my PhD in cognition and language acquisition, a field that is quite equitable in terms of gender. I have had occasion to discuss this topic with many peers, of both genders and do believe my view is balanced and rational. I have yet to have a female colleague take me to task after articulating these very thoughts to them, so I again believe myself to be on solid ethical and academic ground. I am not above reproach of course, and I am not preempting opposition, but I should hope that anything more that comes up has some credible meat on its metaphoric bones.
http://www.uab.edu/uabmagazine/breakthroughs/outreach/gender-equity-in-math-and-science
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...201104/why-dont-women-ask-men-out-first-dates
http://open.salon.com/blog/artlouis/2011/09/13/what_do_women_want_hint_its_not_equality
http://storylineblog.com/2012/10/30/like-equals-or-like-men/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/...-war-on-mens-rights-after-protest-in-detroit/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/17/1314436/--I-Don-t-Need-Feminism-Because-I-Support-Equality
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-561159/Why-women-dont-want-jobs-feminist.html
http://www.collegian.com/2013/09/do-women-want-chivalry-or-equality/41618/
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/americas-changing-workforce.pdf
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/life/10286103/Modern-feminism-do-women-have-equality
https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/21309-hymowitz-do-women-really-want-equality
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/s...ams-find-success-then-draw-ire.html?_r=2&hpw&
http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/04/do-women-really-want-equality/
A good talk on the topic (mainly about Nigerian society, but she makes some salient points):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg3umXU_qWc
And just for another view:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-LCohouNDc
As for the initial post’s picture, that is hilarious. I would love to see the same with a male; people pull his nuts to get a beverage dispensed from a huge phallus. Good stuff. Feminist have no sense of humor.
Last edited:
Very nice post Carbon. It's obvious you reside in academia. I'll certainly be rereading the entire post after work to really digest it all.
This will do it for me too on this thread. These sort of 'heavy on the emotion' threads get nasty in a hurry and I don't want that. I've already been called some harsh names but I just genuinely like all the posters here. Even you Al I read everything you post because I think you are smart and passionate about things Unreal. We just happen to have polarized views on this and it's no reason to let it create a rift.
Carbon wrote
Teridax, I admire your heart and concern. I'm sorry that I don't have you as a close friend because you are someone that can be depended upon to stand your ground. I'm certainly impressed. Still don't agree with you at all but that has no bearing on my opinion of you.
These are all great points everyone is making so I'll continue to read them if the discussion goes on. I just don't have the time to spend 30 minutes reading each post then letting it gel in my mind then another 30 minutes crafting a proper reply. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed so something readable often takes me several tries to get right. We all owe it a proper effort though because it is one of the defining moments in human societal evolution.
Well, that and it's us in charge so we have to decide for everyone
Love you guys! Peace my brothers.
(Edit: Yay I finally made the tags! I'm a little put off that it's..well, banal. You can do better.)
This will do it for me too on this thread. These sort of 'heavy on the emotion' threads get nasty in a hurry and I don't want that. I've already been called some harsh names but I just genuinely like all the posters here. Even you Al
I read everything you post because I think you are smart and passionate about things Unreal. We just happen to have polarized views on this and it's no reason to let it create a rift.Carbon wrote
I think that succinctly encapsulates the entire discussion and all the posts are varying degrees of those two sentences. This has been very stimulating and a thread I've enjoyed greatly.
Teridax, I admire your heart and concern. I'm sorry that I don't have you as a close friend because you are someone that can be depended upon to stand your ground. I'm certainly impressed. Still don't agree with you at all but that has no bearing on my opinion of you.
These are all great points everyone is making so I'll continue to read them if the discussion goes on. I just don't have the time to spend 30 minutes reading each post then letting it gel in my mind then another 30 minutes crafting a proper reply. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed so something readable often takes me several tries to get right. We all owe it a proper effort though because it is one of the defining moments in human societal evolution.
Well, that and it's us in charge so we have to decide for everyone
Love you guys! Peace my brothers.
(Edit: Yay I finally made the tags! I'm a little put off that it's..well, banal. You can do better.)
Last edited:
so... that picture on the first page is p. funny right guys?
this is why we can't have nice things
this is why we can't have nice things
How did a thread about pee-joke snow cones turn into a gaggle of white knights protecting the virtue of all the women not reading the thread?
In relation to the title post, I laughed. My contribution has now been noted.
In relation to the title post, I laughed. My contribution has now been noted.
Last edited:
unless you were trying to illustrate the transitive properties of "opposites," then the pictures you just posted have literally nothing to do with anything and are about as useless as the ridiculous argument you got bogged down in that made everyone else abandon the topic.
bravo.
bravo.
I can't tell you how much your thoughts mean to me and I am so sorry the significance of the pictures is lost on you. I am surprised, because it is you that usually discerns the finer things in posts; you have this delicate, yet powerful ability to infer the nuances of people and ideas. At least I gave you cause to post again, releasing another grain of your salty wit to spice up all of our lives.
In my own defense jack, look at my joined date! How can I possibly measure up to your exacting standards with such little posting experience? I’m still on my little training wheels and you want me to race with the big dogs like you! Have a heart!
You take care now and keep up the great and exhausting work of keeping it simple! I will sincerely try harder not to upset your minimalist sensibilities in the future.
Just for clarification: I assume that "bogged down" means my post is not a byte-sized chunk of reductionist gibberish or a glib one-liner that wants to sound profound but is really just obtuse in order to conceal deep and far-reaching apathy and/or ignorance, right? Who can possibly keep up with you jack! And while I appreciate being the sole focus of your undivided attention, I think the other posters who likewise wrote far too much in this thread are going to feel left out unless you include them in your future proclamations of righteousness.
I can't tell you how much your thoughts mean to me and I am so sorry the significance of the pictures is lost on you. I am surprised, because it is you that usually discerns the finer things in posts; you have this delicate, yet powerful ability to infer the nuances of people and ideas. At least I gave you cause to post again, releasing another grain of your salty wit to spice up all of our lives.
In my own defense jack, look at my joined date! How can I possibly measure up to your exacting standards with such little posting experience? I’m still on my little training wheels and you want me to race with the big dogs like you! Have a heart!
You take care now and keep up the great and exhausting work of keeping it simple! I will sincerely try harder not to upset your minimalist sensibilities in the future.
Just for clarification: I assume that "bogged down" means my post is not a byte-sized chunk of reductionist gibberish or a glib one-liner that wants to sound profound but is really just obtuse in order to conceal deep and far-reaching apathy and/or ignorance, right? Who can possibly keep up with you jack! And while I appreciate being the sole focus of your undivided attention, I think the other posters who likewise wrote far too much in this thread are going to feel left out unless you include them in your future proclamations of righteousness.
