Spin-off thread about feminism [Archive]

Camo

01-01-17, 07:13 PM

feminism is cancer.

hahaha. Jesus christ. Feminism = the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes. MONSTERS!

There's extreme feminists (Emma Watson might be one i really don't know) that i don't agree with at all; for instance there's some nutjobs who believe that women should be allowed to take consent back after already giving it to reclassify the consensual sex they had as rape, now those people are absurd. Using those crazies to judge the whole movement is just as bad as claiming all right-wingers are awful because fascism exists. Thing is the majority of feminists are moderate with reasonable views and everybody who brings up the radicals knows this, it's just an easy way to dismiss the whole movement because it inconveinces them.

This is specifically directed to FromBeyond for the record, there's plenty of problems with Feminism and i don't see any problem with pointing them out but dismissing a whole movement based on the idea that women and men should be treated the same is absurd. There's some ways men don't get treated fairly as well (although absolutely not on the same level) like cases of custody of children for example; feminism is just the idea that women and men should be treated equally and the fact that women in the west are treated better than they are in Saudi Arabia is just a hilarious point to make. Bravo! :rotfl:

Camo

01-01-17, 07:16 PM

**** your self righteous anger neiba, go on insult me, I love being insulted by people who don't know me, is your blood pressure a little high, maybe you should take a nap,your brain might fall out..

Oh my god! If this isn't a Suspect/SC alt i'm going to be severely disappointed :rotfl:

FromBeyond

01-01-17, 08:33 PM

hahaha. Jesus christ. Feminism = the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes. MONSTERS!

There's extreme feminists (Emma Watson might be one i really don't know) that i don't agree with at all; for instance there's some nutjobs who believe that women should be allowed to take consent back after already giving it to reclassify the consensual sex they had as rape, now those people are absurd. Using those crazies to judge the whole movement is just as bad as claiming all right-wingers are awful because fascism exists. Thing is the majority of feminists are moderate with reasonable views and everybody who brings up the radicals knows this, it's just an easy way to dismiss the whole movement because it inconveinces them.

This is specifically directed to FromBeyond for the record, there's plenty of problems with Feminism and i don't see any problem with pointing them out but dismissing a whole movement based on the idea that women and men should be treated the same is absurd. There's some ways men don't get treated fairly as well (although absolutely not on the same level) like cases of custody of children for example; feminism is just the idea that women and men should be treated equally and the fact that women in the west are treated better than they are in Saudi Arabia is just a hilarious point to make. Bravo! :rotfl:

Third wave feminism = the advocacy of woman's superiority on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

boys are falling behind because of all kinds of initatives aimed solely towards girls

It is a fabricated nonsense that women in the west are somehow worse off than men in any way.

It is harmful. It is wrong, what more can one say

Iroquois

01-01-17, 09:54 PM

This is Milo "Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer?" Yiannopolous we're talking about. Please excuse me if I don't see any reason to treat his opinions with respect.

Swan

01-01-17, 10:32 PM

Third wave feminism = the advocacy of woman's superiority on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

Has Watson ever said anything to promote that belief system?

TONGO

01-02-17, 12:22 AM

How............why would someone get so bent about feminism?! Disagree with the philosophy, fine, but this is hardly a stain on society or weakening it. I dont get it. So you got a bunch of women all hell bent to get more rights........why hate them? Theres hundreds of organizations wanting more right in the public or private sector. Are you from the south FromBeyond?

FromBeyond

01-02-17, 01:38 AM

Iroquois

01-02-17, 02:18 AM

Literally I am not so hell bent, I wouldn't of gave it much more thought than my first point had others not bought me up on it

It is a stain on society, that is exactly what it is

No I'm from beyond... the south

OP asks a sincere question and not only are the first three words of your first post "I don't know" but you then go on about how you not only don't like the series but go off on a barely-related tangent about how you hate leftists and feminists - then you admit to not having given said post much thought until others understandably challenged you over it. The fact that that's your first post and then you then go on to compare feminism to cancer is understandably going to make you seem disagreeable to other people.

ash_is_the_gal

01-03-17, 08:08 AM

damn dirty leftists.

ash_is_the_gal

01-03-17, 12:13 PM

don't rep me, FromBeyond. i'm being sarcastic as hell.

Yoda

01-03-17, 12:33 PM

I'm going to have to ask you guys to stay on topic. I don't see how Emma Watson being a feminist, or Rowling's kids being liberal, has anything to do with the question that was asked.

You can talk about these issues if you want, but they're going to be spun off into a new thread if it continues.

FromBeyond

01-03-17, 12:55 PM

then you admit to not having given said post much thought until others understandably challenged you over it.

I did not admit to not having given said post much thought, I admitted I wouldn't of given said post much thought after I had written it unless I had been challenged but if you really think after every post I have made I suddenly got this idea of a back of a nutshell, then thank you kindly.. although I do prefer to have my arguments challenged than my character, I realize that is hard when you can't counter facts and progress. I wouldn't of given my first post much thought afterwards because I would rather think about femdom not feminism, mistress would kill me if she read any of this.. lol :shifty:

I have given feminism plenty of thought and heard it been refuted so eloquently and the debate has already been won.

seanc

01-03-17, 12:57 PM

THEY MAKE TAKE OUR FEMINISM BUT THEY WILL NEVER TAKE..OUR FEMDOM!

Yoda

01-03-17, 01:09 PM

So, this is the spin-off thread I just warned everyone about. I've also deleted several posts where members directly insult each other. Please don't do that. No matter how upsetting or offensive a viewpoint is, it's very important that we criticize the viewpoint rather than just calling someone a name.

FromBeyond

01-03-17, 01:17 PM

http://img0.joyreactor.com/pics/post/funny-pictures-auto-881270.jpeg

FromBeyond

01-03-17, 01:30 PM

don't rep me, FromBeyond. i'm being sarcastic as hell.

no ****.

Yoda

01-03-17, 01:37 PM

Please try to keep this civil. The fact that it's in its own thread is better, but if this just gets downright spiteful/nasty, I'm going to close it.

Citizen Rules

01-03-17, 01:39 PM

Real men support feminism, because women are people too:)
http://www.tap808.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/feminist-man_2684936b-1.jpg

Iroquois

01-03-17, 09:40 PM

I did not admit to not having given said post much thought, I admitted I wouldn't of given said post much thought after I had written it unless I had been challenged but if you really think after every post I have made I suddenly got this idea of a back of a nutshell, then thank you kindly..

Not sure how that is supposed to make things better - in fact, it might make things worse. It's not helped by your cherry-picking one sentence out of a whole paragraph to argue against.

although I do prefer to have my arguments challenged than my character, I realize that is hard when you can't counter facts and progress.

So far the only facts you've actually cited come from a single image macro comparing Brian Banks against Anita Sarkeesian, and even then certain aspects are downplayed to fit the obvious anti-Sarkeesian agenda (which has extended to threatening to shoot up schools (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/15/tech/utah-anita-sarkeesian-threat/), by the way). Leaving aside the extreme rarity of false rape accusations in comparison to those regarding actual rapes, doing my own research into Brian Banks did turn up this news article (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/wrongfully-convicted-brian-banks-disgusted-brock-turner-ruling-article-1.2663595) that notably compares his case against that of Brock Turner and how unfair it is that the innocent black high school student served six years (out of a possible 41) compared to the guilty white college student who served three months of a six-month sentence. There are other factors at play with Banks' case that go beyond any pro- or anti-feminist agenda, and using one man's personal tragedy to justify an anti-feminist worldview just seems to be baldly opportunistic more than anything else.

wouldn't of given my first post much thought afterwards because I would rather think about femdom not feminism, mistress would kill me if she read any of this.. lol :shifty:

It doesn't seem like you see much of a difference between the two.

I have given feminism plenty of thought and heard it been refuted so eloquently and the debate has already been won.

By who? This guy?

https://i.redd.it/1kxw9eraduax.jpg

Captain Steel

01-03-17, 09:51 PM

The Honeymooners was the first sit-com that had feminism as its central and consistent theme.

Sir Toose

01-04-17, 12:59 AM

..probably safe to say he is a leftist.

What's wrong with being a leftist?

Be specific please.

(Hint: Don't assume I am one because I ask for clarification)

Topsy

01-04-17, 11:52 AM

omg some people.......

Mr Minio

01-04-17, 12:19 PM

damn dirty leftists. I'm left-handed! I feel offended!

TONGO

01-04-17, 12:45 PM

ADMIN EDIT: this thread was spun off from How did Harry Potter become this colossal worldwide? (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=47591).

I don't know but I think they are crap and over-rated and JK Rowling seems to really love herself, like not modest at all and those 3 kids have all grown into leftist morons , the standard safe Hollywood opinions, Emma Watson in particular is a vile feminist who doesn't understand about facts. Radcliff is a leftist, I don't know about the ginger one, probably safe to say he is a leftist.

"Vile Feminist", is this to mean all feminists, or a select few? Are all leftists vile too, or just a select few?

CiCi

01-04-17, 12:51 PM

The poll on that tweet is one of the most shocking things I've ever seen. Largely because I'm assuming the majority of people who answered are in the Western world.

Yoda

01-04-17, 12:53 PM

I wouldn't take anything like that remotely literally. I doubt the people voting on it did, either.

Miss Vicky

01-04-17, 12:54 PM

The poll on that tweet is one of the most shocking things I've ever seen. Largely because I'm assuming the majority of people who answered are in the Western world.

I don't find it shocking at all. The guy's a far right, outspoken critic of feminism so it's safe to assume that the majority of his followers will have similarly ignorant views.

Citizen Rules

01-04-17, 12:54 PM

I agree with Yoda, the Twitter poll was most likely considered a joke and the votes, just people joking around.

Topsy

01-04-17, 01:07 PM

nah his followers are the ones who bombareded leslie jones with racism,hacked her computer and leaked her nude photos after she spoke against them. Im not at all surprised by the \poll those are the sort of people who follow him. and people being scared of/not understanding feminism is nothing new.

Yoda

01-04-17, 01:13 PM

Citizen Rules

01-04-17, 01:14 PM

Topsy, that's sad. I didn't know about that. I don't follow Twitter stuff, only Mofo stuff:p

CiCi

01-04-17, 01:16 PM

I don't find it shocking at all. The guy's a far right, outspoken critic of feminism so it's safe to assume that the majority of his followers will have similarly ignorant views.

Ah, that makes a lot more sense now :lol:

Swan

01-04-17, 01:36 PM

https://i.redd.it/1kxw9eraduax.jpg

ew

ash_is_the_gal

01-04-17, 01:47 PM

I'm left-handed! I feel offended!

me too! lefties unite!! :)

Topsy

01-04-17, 01:47 PM

Topsy, that's sad. I didn't know about that. I don't follow Twitter stuff, only Mofo stuff:p

its horrible,and he was rewarded with $250 deal,thats currently 1 on amazon pre-order.theres alot of morons out there unfortunately.

Swan

01-04-17, 01:55 PM

me too! lefties unite!! :)

I'm a leftie too. Can I be part of the Awesome Leftie Squad?

Captain Steel

01-04-17, 02:24 PM

me too! lefties unite!! :)

http://i.imgur.com/HemsZS2.jpg

Swan

01-04-17, 02:25 PM

Would so go into that store and buy everything.

CosmicRunaway

01-04-17, 02:34 PM

Nice to see so many fellow lefties. :up:

We might soon need another spin-off thread, this time for left-handed people.

Miss Vicky

01-04-17, 02:36 PM

I'm technically a lefty, but I only write with my left hand. I bowl, use scissors, and do everything else right-handed.

CosmicRunaway

01-04-17, 02:38 PM

I use scissors with my right hand as well. I can't use them at all with my left. I think it's because when I had to use them in school there were never any left-handed scissors. Or there would be one pair, but there were 4 other lefties in the class haha.

Camo

01-04-17, 02:40 PM

RIGHT POWER!

http://i66.tinypic.com/73knsx.png

Swan

01-04-17, 02:42 PM

RIGHT POWER!

http://i66.tinypic.com/73knsx.png

You right-handed losers don't have any of the superpowers we have!

Mr Minio

01-04-17, 02:45 PM

I'm technically a lefty, but I only write with my left hand. I bowl, use scissors, and do everything else right-handed. I'm ambidextrous in one certain activity, too. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Camo

01-04-17, 02:56 PM

You right-handed losers don't have any of the superpowers we have!

Even king of the lefties Ned Flanders is raising his right hand because he knows we are superior!

http://i64.tinypic.com/23s7j7o.jpg

Daniel M

01-04-17, 03:12 PM

I'm glad people like Iro exist to argue so well against morons like this so I don't have to. I don't think there's been an argument on this forum that I have seen where I haven't agreed with him, in fact.

ash_is_the_gal

01-04-17, 03:17 PM

and his signature is perfect. right?

Gatsby

01-04-17, 08:31 PM

http://i.imgur.com/1KdeFek.gif

False Writer

01-04-17, 10:50 PM

Wow, had no idea there were other left-handed MoFos. Pretty cool! I'm left-handed but can actually do quite a bit of stuff with my right pretty well.

RIGHT POWER!

http://i66.tinypic.com/73knsx.png

You handist!

Camo

01-04-17, 10:54 PM

What the hells with all the lefties here? Wouldn't expect to find this percentage of them at a left-handed convention.

Iroquois

01-04-17, 11:45 PM

I don't think it was a joke, but there are many gradations between "totally joking" and "actually serious." I think it's clear that most of them would not literally prefer their kids had cancer, but they are perfectly willing to vote that way in a meaningless poll to make a statement about how much they dislike feminism.

You never know. There's certainly room for doubt as to how many people would actually follow through with voting for cancer if such a scenario were actually plausible, but I can see the choice being driven by the same kind of hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner logic that allows for gay conversion therapy or anti-vaccination groups or honour killings.

Swan

01-04-17, 11:59 PM

TONGO

01-05-17, 01:30 PM

I dont think this reaction is as much a support for Leftism or Feminism as it is a reaction to the hateful start. I never did get an answer to my question though. hmph

seanc

01-05-17, 01:54 PM

Yoda

01-05-17, 02:41 PM

You never know. There's certainly room for doubt as to how many people would actually follow through with voting for cancer if such a scenario were actually plausible, but I can see the choice being driven by the same kind of hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner logic that allows for gay conversion therapy or anti-vaccination groups or honour killings.
I think it goes pretty well beyond "room for doubt." This is a Twitter poll, for crying out loud. There are zero stakes, it's virtually anonymous, and the people voting know the results will be publicized, and they know what result the author is trying to solicit to make their point, so there's a huge selection bias problem, too. It's quite possibly the least scientific kind of poll you could devise.

The Internet is full of activists of all kinds that love to use ridiculous overstatement to make a point. That should be everyone's null hypothesis, in the absence of compelling evidence otherwise.

Yoda

01-05-17, 02:44 PM

I'm glad people like Iro exist to argue so well against morons like this so I don't have to.
I generally find him reasonable, but that leads me to the opposite conclusion entirely: that he should spend more time engaging with better arguments and less time shooting down the bad ones.

Also, a reminder to please refrain from personal insults.

FromBeyond

01-05-17, 05:46 PM

Not sure how that is supposed to make things better - in fact, it might make things worse. It's not helped by your cherry-picking one sentence out of a whole paragraph to argue against.

*******************************************************************************

By who? This guy?

https://i.redd.it/1kxw9eraduax.jpg

I'm just quoting you for accusing me of cherry picking one sentence when you and others keep doing the very same thing, I think we have established that Milo Yiannopoulos compares feminsm to cancer he say's things like that to piss off liberal ****tards and I'm glad it is working but if you hear him speak at length, he does have a heart and speaks with more eloquence that anything I have read here and is tireless bro

I have my own eyes and my own mind and I see no inequality of the sexes, do you? it just so happens I see a lot of my views the same as Milo and nobody has done so much as him in the fight, I think he is great.

Camo

01-05-17, 05:53 PM

Can people stop hijacking the left hand discussion thread? :coleman:

Chypmunk

01-05-17, 06:04 PM

McCarthy would have had a field day on here :eek:

Topsy

01-05-17, 06:12 PM

I have my own eyes and my own mind and I see no inequality of the sexes, do you?

then youre blinde.
But aside from that,and lets pretend there were no inequialities of the sexes,do you think thats a bad thing? because if not and you think equality of the sexes is a good thing,you do realise that you are a feminist?. Also if it was,true-how do you think it came to be that way?

Citizen Rules

01-05-17, 06:17 PM

...I think we have established that Milo Yiannopoulos compares feminsm to cancer he say's things like that to piss off liberal ****tards and I'm glad it is working...Apparently your anti-feminism message is not working. Yours & Milo's message is so filled with hate and harsh rhetoric, that it falls on deaf ears and has the opposite effect. You've pretty much made feminism look all the better by your post.

Yoda

01-05-17, 06:44 PM

because if not and you think equality of the sexes is a good thing,you do realise that you are a feminist?
I've heard this sentiment a lot, and I think there are some obvious problems with it.

For one, it doesn't define "equality." It could mean "equality under the law," which almost nobody will disagree with. Or it could mean that the sexes should be thought of as the same, which very many people will disagree with. It could also mean that the government should forcibly mandate equality with things like quotas, subsidies, or regulations about wages.

And whichever definition you choose, the mere act of describing one's self this way carries the added connotation that we've failed to meet it. I've never heard someone say "I'm a feminist because I think men and women should be equal...and they are! Yay." The existence of a grievance is implied, otherwise there would be no need for the term.

Topsy

01-05-17, 06:56 PM

he obviously claimed they are equal and if he thinks thats a good thing,then yes he is feminist.

FromBeyond

01-05-17, 07:15 PM

he obviously claimed they are equal and if he thinks thats a good thing,then yes he is feminist.

I know exactly what your saying but I avoided getting into it to face more backlash, it's just a shortcut to get my meaning across.

I see it as equality to achieve, equality afforded by the government in our rights, not socially or in any other way

A path to equality - A few hours of mountain climbing turns a rascal and a saint into two pretty similar creatures. Fatigue is the shortest way to equality and fraternity-- and in the end liberty will surrender to sleep

~ Nietzsche

Yoda

01-05-17, 07:21 PM

he obviously claimed they are equal and if he thinks thats a good thing,then yes he is feminist.
I just listed three different things people might mean when they say "equal," so I have no idea what this is meant to be a response to.

Topsy

01-05-17, 07:32 PM

Slappydavis

01-05-17, 11:28 PM

Iroquois

01-06-17, 12:40 AM

I think it goes pretty well beyond "room for doubt." This is a Twitter poll, for crying out loud. There are zero stakes, it's virtually anonymous, and the people voting know the results will be publicized, and they know what result the author is trying to solicit to make their point, so there's a huge selection bias problem, too. It's quite possibly the least scientific kind of poll you could devise.

The Internet is full of activists of all kinds that love to use ridiculous overstatement to make a point. That should be everyone's null hypothesis, in the absence of compelling evidence otherwise.

It still says a lot that I'm more concerned about not taking something seriously enough than I am about taking it too seriously. In light of recent events, underestimating people's capacity for such thinking feels more and more like a luxury that can't be afforded so easily.

I'm just quoting you for accusing me of cherry picking one sentence when you and others keep doing the very same thing, I think we have established that Milo Yiannopoulos compares feminsm to cancer he say's things like that to piss off liberal ****tards and I'm glad it is working but if you hear him speak at length, he does have a heart and speaks with more eloquence that anything I have read here and is tireless bro

I have my own eyes and my own mind and I see no inequality of the sexes, do you? it just so happens I see a lot of my views the same as Milo and nobody has done so much as him in the fight, I think he is great.

If you were that concerned with his more eloquent rhetoric being heard and understood, then why would you also be glad that he's "pissing off liberal ****tards" with his more obviously divisive comments? It's not like said comments exist separately from his core beliefs and principles - they serve as extensions of the same. His ideals don't automatically become more agreeable just because he expresses them at length in a calm debate setting instead of through vitriolic Twitter one-liners. If a man has no problem publicly comparing feminism to cancer even as a joke/trolling attempt, then how does that give anyone the impression that he's actually got something reasonable and worthwhile to say?

In fairness, I know that it's easy to keep returning to the exact same cancer line again and again, but the guy has said a lot of messed-up stuff (https://bitchmedia.org/article/bad-things-milo-yiannopoulos-has-done-case-his-new-publisher-cares-just-kidding-they-totally) that would make me question anyone who thought that taking his side on anything was a good idea. Thinking of this as a fight certainly doesn't help matters.

Yoda

01-06-17, 11:53 AM

While I think the twitter poll thing is a bit of a mixed bag (part of the point of what Milo does is that he can hide behind a satire/jest/"provocateur" label whenever it suits him, even if he's being serious, to dangerous effect), I just want to make sure that people unfamiliar with him don't get the impression he made one comparison between feminism and cancer and that's been the one thing haunting him.
Yeah, he's consistently horrible. An important distinction, because I really hate using the word thing someone's ever said to encapsulate them as people. But that's definitely not the case with this guy.

I also don't want people getting the idea that what he does is special. He provokes for a living, and you can see his personal brand envelop his identity if you compare early his early discussions to those now (he was never very convincing, but at least he used to have to do more than just spew madlibs of cards against humanity phrases to get attention).
To me, the relevant part is "provokes for a living." I don't take what he or the people voting in that poll are taking seriously, though for entirely different reasons: I don't take the vote seriously for the reasons I listed earlier. I don't take him seriously because I think, like anyone whose livelihood depends on stirring the pot, he's simply uninterested in truth. I don't think he means it, but I also don't think he's pretending to mean it, either. I think he doesn't even think in those terms any more.

Yoda

01-06-17, 12:03 PM

It still says a lot that I'm more concerned about not taking something seriously enough than I am about taking it too seriously. In light of recent events, underestimating people's capacity for such thinking feels more and more like a luxury that can't be afforded so easily.
I think, respectfully, you're learning exactly the wrong lesson from "recent events." In light of recent events, I think misunderstanding such thinking is clearly the greater problem. We can see what the response has been to sheer disdain, to assuming the worst, to shaming people into into acquiescence. It's not working. And it doesn't work because it fundamentally misunderstands what's actually going on.

Most of these people do not literally believe feminism is worse than cancer. They believe certain types of feminism are very bad, and in typical Internet fashion, they say the most extreme things in order to make that notion heard. They say the trolliest thing they can to provoke a response. They use overstatement to rise above the din.

This kind of thing is, I think, really obvious in most other contexts. It's only when it strikes some nerve, on some issue people really care about, that they're tempted to think the other people are really just that bad.

Slappydavis

01-06-17, 03:29 PM

To me, the relevant part is "provokes for a living." I don't take what he or the people voting in that poll are taking seriously, though for entirely different reasons: I don't take the vote seriously for the reasons I listed earlier. I don't take him seriously because I think, like anyone whose livelihood depends on stirring the pot, he's simply uninterested in truth. I don't think he means it, but I also don't think he's pretending to mean it, either. I think he doesn't even think in those terms any more.

I think I agree with you in that I don't take the vote seriously, but I think some people did. Like how I didn't take Pizzagate seriously (and a lot of people that passed Pizzagate stuff on didn't take it seriously) and then a dude shows up at the pizza parlor firing an assault rife to find out the place doesn't even have a basement let alone a basement full of children. Then places that pandered the obviously fabricated story (like infowars) delete all of their past provocation.

Basically, it matters less and less that something starts in jest. (1) There are people that will take it seriously even if it is clearly just for provocation and (2) people see the signal that you can harass under the guise of joking/trolling and imitate it.

I have no doubt that a lot of the rape/death threats to female celebrities are from people who aren't actually planning to commit the act, but it's still destructive to their well-being.

Honestly if this was the only thing Milo has done, I seriously couldn't care less. But when I see it, I'm just reminded that he pushes this rhetoric as his profession and that in total this sort of thing has caused real harm.

Not trying to convince you on anything here, have no reason to think you agree or disagree even, just kinda talking out loud.

Yoda

01-06-17, 03:52 PM

Yeah, we're on the same page. I think people who just post that and think "wow, I can't believe they actually believe that!" are misunderstanding things, but that's the extent of what I'm saying: I think it's totally reasonable to point to the same thing and say "even if they don't actually believe it, it's dangerous to say it."

FromBeyond

01-06-17, 08:04 PM

I know exactly what your saying but I avoided getting into it to face more backlash, it's just a shortcut to get my meaning across.

I see it as equality to achieve, equality afforded by the government in our rights, not socially or in any other way

A path to equality - A few hours of mountain climbing turns a rascal and a saint into two pretty similar creatures. Fatigue is the shortest way to equality and fraternity-- and in the end liberty will surrender to sleep

~ Nietzsche

why do you think thats a bad thing though?

I don't think that and never said it. I think it's absolutely right and already been achieved and I don't think we are going to go backwards. If you watch the video I posted this is all covered, we reached equality and then we overshot the mark.

FromBeyond

01-06-17, 08:20 PM

If you were that concerned with his more eloquent rhetoric being heard and understood, then why would you also be glad that he's "pissing off liberal ****tards" with his more obviously divisive comments? It's not like said comments exist separately from his core beliefs and principles - they serve as extensions of the same. His ideals don't automatically become more agreeable just because he expresses them at length in a calm debate setting instead of through vitriolic Twitter one-liners. If a man has no problem publicly comparing feminism to cancer even as a joke/trolling attempt, then how does that give anyone the impression that he's actually got something reasonable and worthwhile to say?

In fairness, I know that it's easy to keep returning to the exact same cancer line again and again, but the guy has said a lot of messed-up stuff (https://bitchmedia.org/article/bad-things-milo-yiannopoulos-has-done-case-his-new-publisher-cares-just-kidding-they-totally) that would make me question anyone who thought that taking his side on anything was a good idea. Thinking of this as a fight certainly doesn't help matters.

So people refuse to listen to reason and facts, with the amount of work Milo has put in and I seen it, it is understandable that he is now an agitator, extremism breeds extremism and third wave feminism breeds our lord and saviour Milo Yiannopoulous.

Topsy

01-06-17, 11:41 PM

do you think equality is reached ww or just in America?

Iroquois

01-07-17, 09:27 AM

I think, respectfully, you're learning exactly the wrong lesson from "recent events." In light of recent events, I think misunderstanding such thinking is clearly the greater problem. We can see what the response has been to sheer disdain, to assuming the worst, to shaming people into into acquiescence. It's not working. And it doesn't work because it fundamentally misunderstands what's actually going on.

Most of these people do not literally believe feminism is worse than cancer. They believe certain types of feminism are very bad, and in typical Internet fashion, they say the most extreme things in order to make that notion heard. They say the trolliest thing they can to provoke a response. They use overstatement to rise above the din.

This kind of thing is, I think, really obvious in most other contexts. It's only when it strikes some nerve, on some issue people really care about, that they're tempted to think the other people are really just that bad.

In that case, it does seem like the kind of thing that cuts both ways and neither one of us can speak authoritatively as to what "some" or "most" or "all" of these people genuinely think about the proposed hypothetical. If I'm assuming the worst, does that mean that you're assuming the best?

Besides, calm and reasonable debate is proving an issue because it's getting harder and harder to tell where a genuine discussion ends and a stubborn quasi-trolling diatribe begins - by the time you realise it's the latter, it's too late. You either keep going and your opponent successfully wastes your time or you walk away and they consider that a win. I'd like to think that's a personal misunderstanding on my part, but based on some of the more protracted discussions I've gotten into on here over the past year it's easy to think that that's just the state of the discourse these days.

So people refuse to listen to reason and facts, with the amount of work Milo has put in and I seen it, it is understandable that he is now an agitator, extremism breeds extremism and third wave feminism breeds our lord and saviour Milo Yiannopoulous.

Wouldn't that just beg the question as to what kind of extreme circumstances bred third-wave feminism in the first place? It's kind of a chicken-and-egg situation there. If you're willing to understand why Milo became an "agitator", can you not extend the same understanding to his opponents (who are themselves responding to problems posed by modern society at large)?

ash_is_the_gal

01-07-17, 10:51 AM

Sir Toose

01-07-17, 11:07 AM

... but I'd like to know what everyone considers "extreme feminism."

Well, if the stated goal is equality (and what that means is arguable), then whatever extends beyond that and into preferential treatment would be progressively more extreme. The crazy reductionist fringe is an example but I'd bet there are actually very few of these in comparison to how much airplay they get.

FromBeyond

01-07-17, 01:13 PM

do you think equality is reached ww or just in America?

In Europe.and America.

Wouldn't that just beg the question as to what kind of extreme circumstances bred third-wave feminism in the first place? It's kind of a chicken-and-egg situation there. If you're willing to understand why Milo became an "agitator", can you not extend the same understanding to his opponents (who are themselves responding to problems posed by modern society at large)?

This is kind of twisted logic. Extreme circumstances bred feminism, the suffragettes etc

I am a female therefore I am a feminist.. bred third wave feminism

Why would I extend understanding to people who cant stop lying, they are responding to falsehoods they created.

I understand they should be mocked and belittled and shunned,, they have too much of an emotional investment in their own myth and will never stop.

mark f

01-07-17, 01:39 PM

Now you're talking about Trump.

TONGO

01-07-17, 01:49 PM

Why would I extend understanding to people who cant stop lying, they are responding to falsehoods they created.

I understand they should be mocked and belittled and shunned,, they have too much of an emotional investment in their own myth and will never stop.

Holy damn.....why? Why be so pissed about feminism?? If you were decrying nazis, isis, pedos, or anything else that truly infected and kills a society from within, then ok. Feminism? This is what gets you pissed? Why?

What fuels your disdain for Feminism?

Do you think women are equal to men, yes or no?

If you answered Yes, then do you think it realistic a sect of women will empower what got them to this point? Im not saying feminists are flawless.........just why the ire?

Citizen Rules

01-07-17, 02:46 PM

people ALWAYS point to the extremists when it comes to this topic. what they've coined "feminazis" (hate that term). but I'd like to know what everyone considers "extreme feminism." because it's hard to talk about issues without actually talking about issues. what are they doing that's so extreme? can anyone give examples in their own words, without linking me to some mra propaganda?Excellent post, Ash. I had thought about this too....I mean what do people, especially men think of when they hear the word feminism?...The way some men react so strongly to that word, I can only conclude that they are envisioning a meaning to feminism, that's very extreme. I mean equating feminism to Nazism is stupid, inaccurate and knee jerk reaction.

I've never met a woman who claimed to be a feminist and who hated men and wanted unfair advantages over men. The vast majority of women just want to be treated equally in the work force and in their daily lives. Why is that so hard for men to understand?

ash_is_the_gal

01-07-17, 04:38 PM

Well, if the stated goal is equality (and what that means is arguable), then whatever extends beyond that and into preferential treatment would be progressively more extreme. The crazy reductionist fringe is an example but I'd bet there are actually very few of these in comparison to how much airplay they get.

right, so I guess my next question is, where do women get preferential treatment? serious question, not being sarcastic. honestly trying to understand the other POV

Yoda

01-07-17, 05:15 PM

In that case, it does seem like the kind of thing that cuts both ways and neither one of us can speak authoritatively as to what "some" or "most" or "all" of these people genuinely think about the proposed hypothetical. If I'm assuming the worst, does that mean that you're assuming the best?
Well, to be clear, we're not sitting on opposite ends of the spectrum here. You're actually wondering aloud if they would rather their loved ones die a horrible death than be feminists, IE: whether they're awful, irredeemable people. I'm not at the other extreme, suggesting that saying this stuff is okay, even as a joke or a provocation. I think it's a horrible, misguided way to express distaste for an ideology. I'm just convinced it isn't literal.

Besides, calm and reasonable debate is proving an issue because it's getting harder and harder to tell where a genuine discussion ends and a stubborn quasi-trolling diatribe begins - by the time you realise it's the latter, it's too late. You either keep going and your opponent successfully wastes your time or you walk away and they consider that a win. I'd like to think that's a personal misunderstanding on my part, but based on some of the more protracted discussions I've gotten into on here over the past year it's easy to think that that's just the state of the discourse these days.
You're right, that is the state of discourse. But don't you see the implication of that? Of the two postures we're discussing right now, which one is the kind of thing that makes people eschew reasoned debate? Which one makes them abandon polite norms and thoughtfulness in favor of trolling? Obviously, it's not the one that still treats them like semi-reasonable people who are simply frustrated. It's the one that's writing them off. If someone's treating you like a lost cause, what reason do you have to engage in "calm and reasonable debate"? You're giving them nothing to lose, reputation-wise.

Topsy

01-07-17, 06:17 PM

Excellent post, Ash. I had thought about this too....I mean what do people, especially men think of when they hear the word feminism?...The way some men react so strongly to that word, I can only conclude that they are envisioning a meaning to feminism, that's very extreme. I mean equating feminism to Nazism is stupid, inaccurate and knee jerk reaction.

I've never met a woman who claimed to be a feminist and who hated men and wanted unfair advantages over men. The vast majority of women just want to be treated equally in the work force and in their daily lives. Why is that so hard for men to understand?

its actually sorta impressive what they have done to the word feminism. as soon as it comes into play people cover their ears and refuse to listen.oh a feminist
yet most wont probably realistically say anything negative about it - it just has a negative feeling,a sour taste,attached to it.
so again im going to say that most people are opposed to it dont even understand it.which is pretty clear in this thread.
manhater and feminist are the same thing.the problem with feminism really is that it has to cover too much ground,many feminists have different points of view on subjects. sort of like vegetarians where you have multiple sub catagories/names because one term cant cover all of the differences.

Topsy

01-07-17, 06:21 PM

In Europe.and America.

well then i hope you do some reading on women issues. like unequel pay,unequal job opportunities,human trafficking,sexual assaults etc etc

Sir Toose

01-07-17, 07:48 PM

right, so I guess my next question is, where do women get preferential treatment? serious question, not being sarcastic. honestly trying to understand the other POV

Sorry, I was speaking in terms of a philosophical discussion vs a state of reality.

I believe the answer to your question is presently nowhere.

Except for bikini modeling jobs, perhaps. ;)

FromBeyond

01-07-17, 08:25 PM

Holy damn.....why? Why be so pissed about feminism?? If you were decrying nazis, isis, pedos, or anything else that truly infected and kills a society from within, then ok. Feminism? This is what gets you pissed? Why?

What fuels your disdain for Feminism?

Do you think women are equal to men, yes or no?

If you answered Yes, then do you think it realistic a sect of women will empower what got them to this point? Im not saying feminists are flawless.........just why the ire?

I hate Nazis and isis more than feminists but I don't think there were any in HARRY POTTER!

We have already covered the equality thing, I don't need to repeat myself.

FromBeyond

01-07-17, 08:28 PM

well then i hope you do some reading on women issues. like unequel pay,unequal job opportunities,human trafficking,sexual assaults etc etc

I have read plenty on the "pay gap"

Please learn some truth

https://youtu.be/hRfERVPq2VE

Stefan also has a similar video debunking the "rape culture"

Guys this is why I hate feminists but I'm not going to post here again

Topsy

01-07-17, 08:35 PM

he debunked rape culture. Great,wonderful,so glad to hear it doesnt exist.

Your world must be nice ;) since you dont have to deal it that is

FromBeyond

01-07-17, 08:45 PM

My world is beautiful

femdom not feminism

Yoda

01-07-17, 08:45 PM

well then i hope you do some reading on women issues. like unequel pay
If they do, they'll find that the oft-repeated claims about pay disparity fail to control for even the most basic factors, like hours worked, seniority, or even the type of job. As far as I can tell the idea persists specifically because people don't read up on it, but rather repeat the claim without investigating it for themselves.

unequal job opportunities,human trafficking,sexual assaults etc etc
I can't speak to "unequal job opportunities" without more specifics, but I'm not sure what about the other two is supposed to demonstrate unequal rights. Both are crimes regardless of the gender of the victim, and it seems obvious that women are victims of them disproportionately because they're simply more vulnerable to them. Men, on the other hand, are more likely to be the victims of murder, robbery, and assault, and more likely to die at their workplace, but I don't see how that indicates sexism towards men: it's simply a reflection of their aggregate characteristics.

This is why I asked for clarification earlier on what "equality" meant (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1623186#post1623186), because it seems to be shifting. Initially it sounded like we were just talking about equality under the law, but now you're citing mere differences in outcomes as evidence of inequality, as if men and women were identical and any such difference is prima facie evidence of a problem.

Yoda

01-07-17, 08:55 PM

he debunked rape culture. Great,wonderful,so glad to hear it doesnt exist.

Your world must be nice ;) since you dont have to deal it that is
I'm sure it's also nice to live in a world where you can participate in serious discussion by just listing general opinions and then being really sarcastic when someone disagrees with them.

I honestly can't imagine what that's supposed to accomplish, though.

FromBeyond

01-07-17, 09:00 PM

Men, on the other hand, are more likely to be the victims of murder, robbery, and assault, and more likely to die at their workplace

Men dying in the work place ties in with one of the wage disparities that on average, men work with machines, tools where women by their own choice like to work with people in lower payed fields... of course feminists completely ignore this fact.. as they do the fact that woman by their own choice like to raise family and spend longer periods out of work

As well as men being more likely to be the victims of murder robbery and assault they are also more likely to kill themselves, unlike the gender wage gap, the gender suicide gap is real and based on statistics.

ash_is_the_gal

01-07-17, 09:14 PM

I'm not sure what about [human trafficking and sexual assault] is supposed to demonstrate unequal rights. Both are crimes regardless of the gender of the victim, and it seems obvious that women are victims of them disproportionately because they're simply more vulnerable to them.

yeah, but why are women, poc, and other minorities seen as easier targets? is it, by chance, that they are seen as "lesser than" by these men?

Men, on the other hand, are more likely to be the victims of murder, robbery, and assault, and more likely to die at their workplace, but I don't see how that indicates sexism towards men: it's simply a reflection of their aggregate characteristics.

mmhm, by other men.... different type of harassment than woman, however - women are more likely to be sexually harassed and assaulted.

also, i'd even go as far as to argue that men are more likely to die at their workplace is due to sexism, too - generally speaking, men are more likely to be hired for dangerous jobs like police men, firemen, etc., than women are. sexism hurts men, too. most feminists will tell you that.

This is why I asked for clarification earlier on what "equality" meant (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1623186#post1623186), because it seems to be shifting. Initially it sounded like we were just talking about equality under the law, but now you're citing mere differences in outcomes as evidence of inequality, as if men and women were identical and any such difference is prima facie evidence of a problem.

hmm. equality isn't just about what's under the law, imo. like, yeah, it's a law that everyone be paid and/or hired the same regardless of gender, race, etc, but that doesn't mean that they are. for example, the place i work: i've been working at the same company for several years and my boss is about to retire in a couple years. they needed to bring someone in to take his place, so we've been kinda in the transition between two bosses right now - they hired this young guy, Jimmy. he's slowly been taking over the office while the old boss fades out. anyway, i know for a fact the company i work for would never hire someone without a penis to be in that position. my boss pretty much told me as much when i asked if there was a chance i'd actually get to work for a woman, lol.

i'm not trying to act like every company is like this, so please don't "not all men" me, i'm just trying to point out that having laws to ensure gender equality/equality opportunity in the work force doesn't mean everything is actually 'equal'

maybe this isn't what you were trying to say so if so, nvm :D

Yoda

01-07-17, 09:31 PM

yeah, but why are women, poc, and other minorities seen as easier targets? is it, by chance, that they are seen as "lesser than" by these men?
Race is a pretty huge wrinkle to toss in there; I don't think anyone's spoken to that either way yet, and the reasons for it would presumably be entirely different.

But as for women, it would depend on the specific crime: if it's sexual assault, I think the reason is clear, albeit incredibly icky: there are dramatically fewer situations where women want sex and are denied than the other way around. It's pretty much the exact same logic that has poor people committing more robberies than rich ones.

mmhm, by other men.... different type of harassment than woman, however - women are more likely to be sexually harassed and assaulted.
Yup. The salient point is simply that it's different, and that we should expect it to be different even absent sexism, because men and women have broadly different characteristics, both mental and physical, and it would be bizarre if they somehow were all equally benefited or victimized in every way in spite of this.

also, i'd even go as far as to argue that men are more likely to die at their workplace is due to sexism, too - generally speaking, men are more likely to be hired for dangerous jobs like police men, firemen, etc., than women are. sexism hurts men, too. most feminists will tell you that.
I'm sure you must have already considered the much simpler explanation that most of those jobs are all made easier by increased physical size or strength.

hmm. equality isn't just about what's under the law, imo.
Agreed. Which is why the term needs to be defined. I pointed this out earlier, but it was completely blown off (and with a non-sequitur response that was written as if the question was never even asked, to boot).

Topsy

01-07-17, 09:35 PM

I'm sure it's also nice to live in a world where you can participate in serious discussion by just listing general opinions and then being really sarcastic when someone disagrees with them.

I honestly can't imagine what that's supposed to accomplish, though.

when was this ever a serious discussion?it was a mess from the OP and yet you continously go after members who speak against the subject.
thats your own little issue.

How is feminism or inequality just under the law? I dont exists only at my workplace. and if its just under the law then how wouldnt human trafficking and sexual assault be under it? women are the victim of it because they are women.
and yes men are probably more likely to get murdered and robbed,but most likely not by women.Feminists bring up and want equality for men too not just women,that goes for the high male suicide rates and the macho image some men feel forced to put,and the taboo of sexual assaults against men and mental illness-which is something most choose to ignore when speaking of the subject.
and yes when someone says something like rape culture doesnt exist then iam allowed to sarcastic,im going to go ahead and assume neither of you have to deal with it since you think it doesnt exist.

Yoda

01-07-17, 09:43 PM

when was this ever a serious discussion?
Like most threads on controversial topics, there are several discussions going on, some more serious than others. But even your discussion with FromBeyond has been wildly lopsided: I don't agree with everything he's saying, but he's at least trying to present you with arguments and evidence. That merits more than eye rolling and admonishments to "read up" on it.

How is feminism or inequality just under the law?
It isn't. That was my whole point when I noted earlier that simply saying "you're a feminist if you believe in equality" didn't really explain any of the disagreements. You ignored that, for some reason. You replied, but in a way that made it sound like you hadn't even read the post, let alone answered it.

and yes when someone says something like rape culture doesnt exist then iam allowed to sarcastic,im going to go ahead and assume neither of you have to deal with it since you think it doesnt exist.
You're allowed to say whatever you want, but I think that's counterproductive.

I also think it's pretty crappy to respond to disagreement by immediately attributing it to someone's race or gender.

cricket

01-07-17, 09:49 PM

also, i'd even go as far as to argue that men are more likely to die at their workplace is due to sexism, too - generally speaking, men are more likely to be hired for dangerous jobs like police men, firemen, etc., than women are. sexism hurts men, too. most feminists will tell you that.

Hey, driving a truck is dangerous too! I was also sexually assaulted when a couple of chicks flashed me from a pick up truck on the highway up in Maine. I felt so violated!

:leo:

ash_is_the_gal

01-07-17, 09:50 PM

Race is a pretty huge wrinkle to toss in there; I don't think anyone's spoken to that either way yet, and the reasons for it would presumably be entirely different.

well, most third wave feminism is about more than just gender. it's about equal rights for all, not just equal rights for women.

but, since we're talking about it, why are the reasons different? in your opinion, i mean.

But as for women, it would depend on the specific crime: if it's sexual assault, I think the reason is clear, albeit incredibly icky: there are dramatically fewer situations where women want sex and are denied than the other way around. It's pretty much the exact same logic that has poor people committing more robberies than rich ones.

this feeds into the idea that men are more likely to rape because they are "wired that way" to the point that they can't control themselves. this is harmful, and it's the kind of thing people say about rape all the time.

i'm not arguing that men don't have stronger sex drives, but that having strong sexual urges is no excuse for assault or rape. i know you agree with this so don't worry :p i'm just trying to point out that you seem to be assuming that rape happens only when men aren't getting any by a willing participant, and it's a lot more complicated than that. rape is mainly about power.

Yup. The salient point is simply that it's different, and that we should expect it to be different even absent sexism, because men and women have broadly different characteristics, both mental and physical, and it would be bizarre if they somehow were all equally benefited or victimized in every way in spite of this.
true true. though it's interesting that generally speaking, it's men doing most of the assaulting.

I'm sure you must have already considered the much simpler explanation that most of those jobs are all made easier by increased physical size or strength.

ergh, i really hope you aren't saying that women are less capable than men of the jobs i listed.

Agreed. Which is why the term needs to be defined. I pointed this out earlier, but it was completely blown off (and with a non-sequitur response that was written as if the question was never even asked, to boot).

by me? i don't remember that. :/

Topsy

01-07-17, 09:55 PM

lmfao it was pretty obvious that it wasnt going to be anything serious,as you like to make it out-as it was presented by the op

yes lets get on that again.
¨because i do find it hilarious,that a thread complaining about people being OVERLY pc then suddenly when your own race and gender is brought up youre offended by one little comment.ironic.
as ive said to you when you felt the need to PM me about it,PC has everything to do with both race and gender and whatever feelings you have about PC is contributed by your race and gender,and whatever life experiences you have had to have whatever opinions you have about PC is based on race and gender.not solely but a major part-so when someone wishes for the gold ol days because theres too muc PC nowadays then that very much has to do with race and gender. the fact that you flew of the handle from one comment yet i cant be sarcastic just shows that.

but obviously like i said,nothing serious is going to come from this so i let you boys go ahead and get to the real of feminism and its cancer.

Yoda

01-07-17, 10:14 PM

well, most third wave feminism is about more than just gender. it's about equal rights for all, not just equal rights for women.

but, since we're talking about it, why are the reasons different? in your opinion, i mean.
Just speaking very generally (because we haven't gotten into any specifics at all), I'd say most race-based disparities are actually based on economic disparities. A lot of that stuff goes away if you control for income. Which doesn't mean racism isn't real, it just means the source is probably upstream, so to speak.

this feeds into the idea that men are more likely to rape because they are "wired that way" to the point that they can't control themselves. this is harmful, and it's the kind of thing people say about rape all the time.
I'm not sure that can be helped: men have a stronger sex drive on average, and that's relevant to the discussion. I'm not sure how to express that idea in a way that can't even potentially "feed into" some other related idea that I'm not expressing.

i'm not arguing that men don't have stronger sex drives, but that having strong sexual urges is no excuse for assault or rape. i know you agree with this so don't worry :p
Yeah, I almost included a preemptive caveat or two, but I assumed you'd realize I wasn't suggesting it excused anything.

i'm just trying to point out that you seem to be assuming that rape happens only when men aren't getting any by a willing participant, and it's a lot more complicated than that.
Certainly. The only assumption I'm making is that if one gender has a much stronger sex drive, it will end up in more situations where it wants sex but can't have it, and more of these situations will inevitably mean more people taking what they want. It's awful, and it excuses absolutely nothing, but it's also exactly what we should expect.

rape is mainly about power.
I had a conversation about this recently with my sister, and she suggested whether it was about sex or power had a lot more to do with whether the victim and rapist know each other. Regardless, I think we agree it's complicated, as sexuality usually is.

I think the conclusion is the same either way, though: obviously, wanting sex and not getting it is an inherently powerless situation. So whether the act is a desire for sex, or a desire to simply have the power to choose when to have sex, the main thing is that one gender finds itself in that situation a lot more than the other.

true true. though it's interesting that generally speaking, it's men doing most of the assaulting.
Aye. I don't think men or women are inherently better, but I do think they tend to be good or bad in pretty different ways, and when men are bad, they're very often violent.

ergh, i really hope you aren't saying that women are less capable than men of the jobs i listed.
This is kind of ambiguous: when you say "women" do you mean all women, in aggregate? Because that's what I mean. I don't mean any particular woman. Obviously, a specific woman can be stronger than a specific man, even though "men" are stronger than "women."

Regardless, I'm saying that physical size and strength is an asset in jobs like being a police officer or firefighter. If someone has less of those, that's going to be a disadvantage, and thus have to be made up in other ways. Some people will make that up, and some won't, but when you average it all together, you'll obviously have disproportionate representation for people who don't have those kinds of disadvantages.

Yoda

01-07-17, 10:20 PM

lmfao it was pretty obvious that it wasnt going to be anything serious,as you like to make it out-as it was presented by the op
I think responding this way kinda makes that self-fulfilling. And if it's really that pointless, why reply at all?

yes lets get on that again.Well, you did just do the exact same thing with gender instead of race. It's kinda feeling like a pattern.

¨because i do find it hilarious,that a thread complaining about people being OVERLY pc then suddenly when your own race and gender is brought up youre offended by one little comment.ironic.
Well, first, it's not ironic for me, because I didn't start either thread. And I'm pretty sure the people complaining about political correctness would be fine with you merely mentioning their race and gender...it's just saying that their beliefs are defined by their race and gender that's objectionable. And third, it'd be objectionable even if they were okay with that sort of thing, simply because it seems like a double standard.

as ive said to you when you felt the need to PM me about it
I mean, I can call that stuff out in public rather if you prefer, but I thought it was more considerate to ask privately, in case I misunderstood. :shrug: Up to you, though.

the fact that you flew of the handle from one comment yet i cant be sarcastic just shows that.
Please, show me examples of how I "flew off the handle." :skeptical:

ash_is_the_gal

01-07-17, 11:06 PM

Just speaking very generally (because we haven't gotten into any specifics at all), I'd say most race-based disparities are actually based on economic disparities. A lot of that stuff goes away if you control for income. Which doesn't mean racism isn't real, it just means the source is probably upstream, so to speak.

aight. i'm not disagreeing with this per se i just think it's not the only thing to consider.

I'm not sure that can be helped: men have a stronger sex drive on average, and that's relevant to the discussion. I'm not sure how to express that idea in a way that can't even potentially "feed into" some other related idea that I'm not expressing.

Certainly. The only assumption I'm making is that if one gender has a much stronger sex drive, it will end up in more situations where it wants sex but can't have it, and more of these situations will inevitably mean more people taking what they want. It's awful, and it excuses absolutely nothing, but it's also exactly what we should expect.

I had a conversation about this recently with my sister, and she suggested whether it was about sex or power had a lot more to do with whether the victim and rapist know each other. Regardless, I think we agree it's complicated, as sexuality usually is.

I think the conclusion is the same either way, though: obviously, wanting sex and not getting it is an inherently powerless situation. So whether the act is a desire for sex, or a desire to simply have the power to choose when to have sex, the main thing is that one gender finds itself in that situation a lot more than the other.

may as well lump all of these into one.

i still think you're making a lot of assumptions about rape. you're assuming that all people who rape are just horny and are unable to get laid willingly, and that's not true; according to statistics most rapists are married or have available sex partners. rape is sexual, yes, but it's a sexual release of anger or control to inflict violence and humiliation on the victim. male rapists equate “manhood” with being in control, being aggressive, and carrying out sexual acts. rape is a way to punish and degrade their victims and the sense of power, discharge of anger, and aggression are often more important than any sexual gratification.

This is kind of ambiguous: when you say "women" do you mean all women, in aggregate? Because that's what I mean. I don't mean any particular woman. Obviously, a specific woman can be stronger than a specific man, even though "men" are stronger than "women."

Regardless, I'm saying that physical size and strength is an asset in jobs like being a police officer or firefighter. If someone has less of those, that's going to be a disadvantage, and thus have to be made up in other ways. Some people will make that up, and some won't, but when you average it all together, you'll obviously have disproportionate representation for people who don't have those kinds of disadvantages.

yup i agree that physical strength and size are assets in those kinds of jobs. so do you think the main reason that there are less women in these fields is because women are generally smaller and not as strong as men? cause i'm not disagreeing that isn't part of it, but then that also means that they are going to be more easily dismissed for these jobs even when they are capable, and that happens all the damn time.

oh yeah, meant to say this - it's not just the jobs that are more physical that women are seen less in. there are more women graduating in science majors, for example, but there are waaay more men in science-related jobs than women - so, what's that about? cause it's def not about physical strength and size.

FromBeyond

01-07-17, 11:31 PM

and yes when someone says something like rape culture doesnt exist

The real rape culture is the culture of rape profiteers, professional activists, politicians and women's studies professors whose paychecks rely on rape-mongering propoganda, shame on you

http://i.imgur.com/pa0RNNR.png

Citizen Rules

01-07-17, 11:33 PM

The real rape culture is....rape-mongering propoganda...

Care to explain just what that is?

Swan

01-07-17, 11:54 PM

The real rape culture is the culture of rape profiteers, professional activists, politicians and women's studies professors whose paychecks rely on rape-mongering propoganda, shame on you

http://i.imgur.com/pa0RNNR.png

omg stop embarrassing me

Iroquois

01-08-17, 01:21 AM

This is kind of twisted logic. Extreme circumstances bred feminism, the suffragettes etc

I am a female therefore I am a feminist.. bred third wave feminism

Why would I extend understanding to people who cant stop lying, they are responding to falsehoods they created.

I understand they should be mocked and belittled and shunned,, they have too much of an emotional investment in their own myth and will never stop.

If that's the case, why would I or anyone else extend any understanding to Milo and his ilk? I don't see how "the feminists started it" is supposed to excuse or justify the stuff he said and did in that link I posted (which includes lying and responding to falsehoods he created, such as claiming that Shaun King wasn't black). Third-wave feminism was supposed to be a response not just to the same problems posed by society but also as a means of addressing certain flaws within existing feminist movements - it's not so much a matter of inventing problems so much as it is about acknowledging the ones that nobody else has. There's room for nuance here that gets overlooked in favour of extremes - the same thing arguably happened with the concept of men's rights, where any legitimate concerns (toxic masculinity, higher rates of suicide and depression, unfair treatment of men of colour and/or queer men, etc.) are overlooked because the movement has been co-opted by reactionaries looking to uphold a status quo that favours the straight/white/etc man above all others.

Well, to be clear, we're not sitting on opposite ends of the spectrum here. You're actually wondering aloud if they would rather their loved ones die a horrible death than be feminists, IE: whether they're awful, irredeemable people. I'm not at the other extreme, suggesting that saying this stuff is okay, even as a joke or a provocation. I think it's a horrible, misguided way to express distaste for an ideology. I'm just convinced it isn't literal.

Yeah, I wouldn't say it's 100% literal, but I doubt that it's definitely going to be 0% literal either. As I've noted, it's not a realistic hypothetical in the first place, but the core idea is there for people to take seriously even in the form of a half-joking Twitter poll (and the associated anonymity can also embolden one by allowing them to add their voice to a faceless but sizeable choir) and there is a precedent for people who have allowed their personal beliefs to outweigh their concern for loved ones. The examples I cited earlier were considered extreme, but they stem from the same sort of idea. It's not the question or whether or not they'd actually press a big red button so much as whether or not they'd have to think about whether or not to press the button.

You're right, that is the state of discourse. But don't you see the implication of that? Of the two postures we're discussing right now, which one is the kind of thing that makes people eschew reasoned debate? Which one makes them abandon polite norms and thoughtfulness in favor of trolling? Obviously, it's not the one that still treats them like semi-reasonable people who are simply frustrated. It's the one that's writing them off. If someone's treating you like a lost cause, what reason do you have to engage in "calm and reasonable debate"? You're giving them nothing to lose, reputation-wise.

Perhaps. I know part of me still thinks taking the high road is important (hence why my posts in the Halloween costume thread addressed Gunslinger and Seanc instead of DAnconia) but still, this thread came about because someone saw a benign thread about Harry Potter and used it to go on a tangent about how feminism was an inherently vile ideology. This is the first time I've had any significant contact with FromBeyond, so I'm not sure how much their responses are supposed to reflect how they're responding to me personally or how they handle any kind of opposing viewpoints.

Care to explain just what that is?

It's what happens when you bring up what happened to Brian Banks in an effort to discredit feminists but refuse to acknowledge what happened with Brock Turner.

matt72582

01-08-17, 07:11 AM

Single women make more than men... But women with children probably can't work as much.. A kid is sick, it's usually the mom. Divorce, the kid goes to the mom (I agree with that).. Can't have rights like a buffet. "I'll take this, that, leave that"

Watch movies from before - every guy slaps a woman's butt, and she'd either smile, or make a face, end of story. I don't do that, I'm just saying women have it better than ever in history.

FromBeyond

01-08-17, 08:18 AM

I it's not so much a matter of inventing problems

Then do you care to explain the gender wage gap lie which is often at the forefront of third wave feminists "problems"

FromBeyond

01-08-17, 08:20 AM

Care to explain just what that is?

I think it's pretty self explanatory

christine

01-08-17, 08:21 AM

If they do, they'll find that the oft-repeated claims about pay disparity fail to control for even the most basic factors, like hours worked, seniority, or even the type of job. As far as I can tell the idea persists specifically because people don't read up on it, but rather repeat the claim without investigating it for themselves.

Yes this can be true but whatever the factors behind pay disparity which stil does exist, I think it's more that most of the time it's still the man that earns more in a couple, so therefore the woman goes back to work part time after having children. If I look at every member of my family this is the case.

I often listen to radio discussions about this where women are talking about going back to their professions, but the world isn't all about people with professions. A lot of women go back to work to a low paid part time job like cleaning or supermarket work - work where employers need low paid workers so make shifts that fit in with school hours. I went back to work after my second child to work part time in an office, then in a college canteen simply because it fitted in with dropping the kids to school and I had the school holidays off. My earnings were pretty meagre compared to what I did before.

Why is this? A massive part of women working part time is a cost of childcare. I don't know what it's like in other parts of the world but in the UK it's eyewateringly expensive nowadays and then there's the cost of afterschool clubs too. This alone will contribute to women not going back to work full time and not being able to invest time in their career unless they have a high earning job.

Yoda

01-08-17, 10:56 AM

aight. i'm not disagreeing with this per se i just think it's not the only thing to consider.
Okay then.

i still think you're making a lot of assumptions about rape. you're assuming that all people who rape are just horny and are unable to get laid willingly
Where did I make this assumption? :skeptical:

I said it happens disproportionately because one side is more often denied sex, but that does not imply that I think "all people who rape are just horny." It doesn't even imply that I think some are, because being denied sex represents both a loss of sex and a loss of power.

and that's not true; according to statistics most rapists are married or have available sex partners. rape is sexual, yes, but it's a sexual release of anger or control to inflict violence and humiliation on the victim. male rapists equate “manhood” with being in control, being aggressive, and carrying out sexual acts. rape is a way to punish and degrade their victims and the sense of power, discharge of anger, and aggression are often more important than any sexual gratification.
Yes, I've heard the "it's about power, not sex" stuff. Between this and the thing above, it kinda feels like I'm being reflexively shunted into some predefined group ("oh great, another guy who thinks rape is about sex"), despite not believing it or having said anything that really implies it.

That said, I'm skeptical of anyone's ability to quantify this sort of thing, but for our purposes I'm not sure it matters. I think this is the relevant bit from what you quoted:

I think the conclusion is the same either way, though: obviously, wanting sex and not getting it is an inherently powerless situation. So whether the act is a desire for sex, or a desire to simply have the power to choose when to have sex, the main thing is that one gender finds itself in that situation a lot more than the other.
The point of this line of discussion wasn't to untangle the complicated web of human sexuality, but simply to explain why one gender would commit sexual assault far more than the other. The specific psychological machinations are a separate matter, since all the things you're describing are influenced (and potentially inflamed) by being sexually rejected.

yup i agree that physical strength and size are assets in those kinds of jobs. so do you think the main reason that there are less women in these fields is because women are generally smaller and not as strong as men?
I think that's part of it. I also think women are probably applying for them with much less frequency. And, preemptively: no, I don't think they apply for them less simply because they assume they'll be discriminated against.

oh yeah, meant to say this - it's not just the jobs that are more physical that women are seen less in. there are more women graduating in science majors, for example, but there are waaay more men in science-related jobs than women - so, what's that about? cause it's def not about physical strength and size.
Can you elaborate a bit on more women graduating in science majors? I know, last year, we had more women graduate in engineering than men, but I don't know if that's what you mean by "science majors," and it was a first, so one would expect a bit of lag time there, regardless.

These sorts of details are pretty important, particularly given how much pay equity rhetoric is based almost entirely in failing to distinguish between completely different industries. So I don't know if sociology counts as a "science major," to the point where we're comparing astrophysicists with social workers. So this is definitely a "delve a little into the source" kinda thing.

Yoda

01-08-17, 11:05 AM

Yeah, I wouldn't say it's 100% literal, but I doubt that it's definitely going to be 0% literal either.
Well, I'm glad we've ruled those out. ;)

Perhaps. I know part of me still thinks taking the high road is important (hence why my posts in the Halloween costume thread addressed Gunslinger and Seanc instead of DAnconia)
Aye. It's always worth taking, and it wouldn't really be the high road if people only took it when they thought the other side deserved it. And it doesn't have to always work to be a good idea in general, either. But I'm not even going that far: I'm just making a pragmatic argument.

I assume I don't need to establish my anti-alt-right bonafides around here, for obvious reasons, so you can trust that I'm not trying to make stealth excuses for this behavior.

I think we're in an unfortunate situation where maybe what seems fair, and what will actually help, are not only different, but almost literal opposites. It seems fair that when someone says horrendous things to provoke people, that we write them off completely. But when being written is one of the things that's led them to do that in the first place, it's totally counterproductive. So we have to decide which is more important: expressing our righteous indignation, or "fixing" this, such as we can.

Yoda

01-08-17, 11:18 AM

Yes this can be true but whatever the factors behind pay disparity which stil does exist, I think it's more that most of the time it's still the man that earns more in a couple, so therefore the woman goes back to work part time after having children. If I look at every member of my family this is the case.

I often listen to radio discussions about this where women are talking about going back to their professions, but the world isn't all about people with professions. A lot of women go back to work to a low paid part time job like cleaning or supermarket work - work where employers need low paid workers so make shifts that fit in with school hours. I went back to work after my second child to work part time in an office, then in a college canteen simply because it fitted in with dropping the kids to school and I had the school holidays off. My earnings were pretty meagre compared to what I did before.

Why is this? A massive part of women working part time is a cost of childcare. I don't know what it's like in other parts of the world but in the UK it's eyewateringly expensive nowadays and then there's the cost of afterschool clubs too. This alone will contribute to women not going back to work full time and not being able to invest time in their career unless they have a high earning job.
Aye, this is definitely a part of it. It potentially encompasses the differences between hours worked and seniority. Off the top of my head, I don't recall if this was a bigger factor than the industry one chooses to work in, but I'm pretty sure both were/are significant factors.

And this is the stuff we really need to be talking about, because if sexism a role, this is the upstream point at which it would actually be happening. It's not some evil HR person deliberately choosing to hire women at lower salaries just because they're women. It's whether women are pressured to make larger choices about family and career that have downstream implications on things like wages.

People don't like to talk about that because it's a lot more nuanced, and nuance is the enemy of political rhetoric. And because I suspect it's kind of thorny basically accusing mothers of being brainwashed by society into thinking it's important to spend a lot of time with their kids.

What was your personal experience, for example? Did you feel you had to take time off, or was it simply something you chose because you wanted it? If you don't mind me asking, of course. :)

Yoda

01-08-17, 11:21 AM

I think it's pretty self explanatory
Well, maybe it is, but it's also a very incendiary claim. Maybe he just wants to make sure he understands.

Regardless, it's not an unreasonable request. If you're at the point where you don't feel like explaining these kinds of things, okay, but that's probably a good reason to refrain from saying them at all, yeah?

christine

01-08-17, 12:12 PM

Aye, this is definitely a part of it. It potentially encompasses the differences between hours worked and seniority. Off the top of my head, I don't recall if this was a bigger factor than the industry one chooses to work in, but I'm pretty sure both were/are significant factors.

And this is the stuff we really need to be talking about, because if sexism a role, this is the upstream point at which it would actually be happening. It's not some evil HR person deliberately choosing to hire women at lower salaries just because they're women. It's whether women are pressured to make larger choices about family and career that have downstream implications on things like wages.

People don't like to talk about that because it's a lot more nuanced, and nuance is the enemy of political rhetoric. And because I suspect it's kind of thorny basically accusing mothers of being brainwashed by society into thinking it's important to spend a lot of time with their kids.

What was your personal experience, for example? Did you feel you had to take time off, or was it simply something you chose because you wanted it? If you don't mind me asking, of course. :)

I definately think it's still women that feel the responsibility of children more but there are many reasons why. I think despite everything society still has the attitude that it's the woman who is the nurturer and the man who is the hunter/gatherer but I see many men these days who would love to have more time at home with their children. That's a change in attitude since I was a kid and even since my kids were young. The state is taking this on board too, but it's a slow road.

It's going to take a massive shift in the way we work - shorter hours for everyone, job sharing, a way of making it ok to take time off with sick kids (that's a nightmare), help with childcare costs and what to do during school holidays - things like that for both mothers and fathers equally. Having children is an investment in a country's economy, jobs are in short supply, we need to share what's available more for the benefit of all of us.

Personally I didn't feel brainwashed by society into staying at home with my kids, and that was 30+years ago, in the same way that my mothers generation surely did. However it was an economic necessity that I went back to full time work three months (that's all the maternity leave you had then) after I had my first son. It was the sheer grind of full time work, the travelling and the small amount of time I had with him leaving him so early in the morning and picking him up so late at night that made us rethink our lives. My husband was even worse off as he worked shifts so we had little time as a family. That made us seek out a less pressured life outside of London. So we took out the tenancy of a pub - long hours but we were together and much happier. In the subsequent years after we left the pub, like I said I had several part time jobs simply for ease of childcare. Again I never felt pressured to be at home with the kids, indeed I liked to go out to work even though the pay in those jobs barely covered the childcare costs and the juggling of hours was a bit chaotic

When I see some people these days with job shares I always think what a great idea they are.

Yoda

01-08-17, 12:30 PM

I definately think it's still women that feel the responsibility of children more but there are many reasons why. I think despite everything society still has the attitude that it's the woman who is the nurturer and the man who is the hunter/gatherer
Oh, definitely. But as you allude to, it's the reasons why that are important. If people have this attitude for arbitrary reasons, that's totally different than having it because women decide to do it much more often.

It's going to take a massive shift in the way we work - shorter hours for everyone, job sharing, a way of making it ok to take time off with sick kids (that's a nightmare), help with childcare costs and what to do during school holidays - things like that for both mothers and fathers equally. Having children is an investment in a country's economy, jobs are in short supply, we need to share what's available more for the benefit of all of us.
Yeah, I think a pretty good (and even conservative) case can be made for more state-sponsored child support credits across the board. And really, that's the conversation we should all be having. I think it's really misguided to lay this at the feet of some random middle manager trying to decide whether to hire someone who's just been off work for a year, and someone who hasn't, and expect them not to care about that and to bear the potential cost of it, to boot. That's treating a symptom.

If we think society as a whole will be better off by compensating women for making that decision, then let's call it what it is and talk about a social program, rather than an employment mandate.

Personally I didn't feel brainwashed by society into staying at home with my kids, and that was 30+years ago, in the same way that my mothers generation surely did.
My suspicion is there might be a disconnect between what people think happens in aggregate, and their personal experiences. IE: everyone thinks women are unfairly pressured into staying with their children, even if almost no individual women will feel that they were.

However it was an economic necessity that I went back to full time work three months (that's all the maternity leave you had then) after I had my first son. It was the sheer grind of full time work, the travelling and the small amount of time I had with him leaving him so early in the morning and picking him up so late at night that made us rethink our lives. My husband was even worse off as he worked shifts so we had little time as a family. That made us seek out a less pressured life outside of London. So we took out the tenancy of a pub - long hours but we were together and much happier. In the subsequent years after we left the pub, like I said I had several part time jobs simply for ease of childcare. Again I never felt pressured to be at home with the kids, indeed I liked to go out to work even though the pay in those jobs barely covered the childcare costs and the juggling of hours was a bit chaotic
"Tenancy of a pub" = running a pub? If you ran a pub, that'd be perfect, because you have a profound ability to navigate touchy subjects in thoughtful ways, which I imagine would be exactly the kind of skill you'd need to do that job. :laugh:

Swan

01-08-17, 01:13 PM

I love christine. And Yoda. But christine doesn't get enough praise.

Yoda

01-08-17, 01:14 PM

I'm pulling my weight on the Christine praise front. It's the rest of you who're slacking.

ash_is_the_gal

01-08-17, 01:19 PM

Where did I make this assumption? :skeptical:

I said it happens disproportionately because one side is more often denied sex, but that does not imply that I think "all people who rape are just horny." It doesn't even imply that I think some are, because being denied sex represents both a loss of sex and a loss of power.

Yes, I've heard the "it's about power, not sex" stuff. Between this and the thing above, it kinda feels like I'm being reflexively shunted into some predefined group ("oh great, another guy who thinks rape is about sex"), despite not believing it or having said anything that really implies it.

That said, I'm skeptical of anyone's ability to quantify this sort of thing, but for our purposes I'm not sure it matters. I think this is the relevant bit from what you quoted:

The point of this line of discussion wasn't to untangle the complicated web of human sexuality, but simply to explain why one gender would commit sexual assault far more than the other. The specific psychological machinations are a separate matter, since all the things you're describing are influenced (and potentially inflamed) by being sexually rejected.

again, you're assuming that men who rape are only doing it because they are being denied sex by willing participants, and you're glossing over where i said that most rapists actually have willing and available sexual participants in their life. that's why i said rape isn't just about 'needing to get off.' for these men, rape becomes a way to compensate for their underlying feelings of inadequacy and feeds their issues of mastery, control, dominance, strength, intimidation, authority and capability - you know, the things men are taught make them 'manly.' you keep saying you aren't saying it's just about sex, but the only things i've seen you say about it is that it happens when men feel a loss of power from being 'denied sex'... soo...

i want to ask you honestly: have you ever spoken to victims of rape before about these situations? cause i have. i was talking to my husband about this subject the other day and when i told him that almost half of the women in my life, that i know personally, have been sexually assaulted at some point, he was shocked. i pointed out to him that there's a probable chance a good portion of the women he knows/have known have been sexually assaulted, too, but women are more likely to talk to their female friends rather than their male friends, which is probably why i'm aware of this and he isn't.

I think that's part of it. I also think women are probably applying for them with much less frequency. And, preemptively: no, I don't think they apply for them less simply because they assume they'll be discriminated against.

alright, i went into research mode. behold. :D

first example: women have been a leading force in sanitation strikes (http://www.labornotes.org/2014/10/women-lead-sanitation-strike-massive-education-complex-china), calling for equal treatment and job security and employment goals (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/meet-new-member-new-york-city-sexiest-strongest-article-1.989851). women have fought long and hard to work in sanitation (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/31/nyregion/2-female-sanitation-workers-earning-high-marks.html), and they're still continuing that effort (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/agency-man-world-women-sewer-workers-sue-dep-unfair-treatment-article-1.418539) to open up the field more. the issue is so big that Parks and Rec made an episode about it, even.

http://www.trbimg.com/img-51030585/turbine/bal-parks-and-recreation-season-5-20130125/600/600x399

another example: sewer work. it's often targeted for its biased hiring practices (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-07-26/news/0207260005_1_construction-supervisor-deep-tunnel-william-ryan). many women have fought for limited available positions (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449512/Pays-OK-hours-stink-Meet-Britains-female-SEWAGE-apprentices.html), but are often turned away, despite having the necessary experience and skills. feminists have long since recognized that these women are willing and able to do the work, but aren’t getting the opportunity to gain employment here.

oh, one more example, cause third time's the charm: historically, coal mining is one of the most highly targeted careers for gender bias. women have been petitioning for the opportunity to mine safely since the Industrial Revolution (http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/coalMine.html). matter of fact, this is actually one of the primary and best studied examples of women fighting to enter traditionally male fields (http://libraryguides.berea.edu/womenandcoal).

Can you elaborate a bit on more women graduating in science majors? I know, last year, we had more women graduate in engineering than men, but I don't know if that's what you mean by "science majors," and it was a first, so one would expect a bit of lag time there, regardless.

These sorts of details are pretty important, particularly given how much pay equity rhetoric is based almost entirely in failing to distinguish between completely different industries. So I don't know if sociology counts as a "science major," to the point where we're comparing astrophysicists with social workers. So this is definitely a "delve a little into the source" kinda thing.

sorry, i should have been more clear: there are more female applicants dominating entrance to medicine, law, and biology undergraduate degrees, particularly medicine/dentistry. you're correct in your assertion that men dominate most stem (science, technology, engineering and maths) subjects, most notably in engineering.

FromBeyond

01-08-17, 02:18 PM

Well, maybe it is, but it's also a very incendiary claim. Maybe he just wants to make sure he understands.

Well any claim that rape is a culture is propaganda and there are people who make a living from teaching, lecturing, giving speeches, politicians who take it up as one of their populist causes, anything that gives credence to it.

ash_is_the_gal

01-08-17, 02:22 PM

Well any claim that rape is a culture is propaganda and there are people who make a living from teaching, lecturing, giving speeches, politicians who take it up as one of their populist causes, anything that gives credence to it.i guess we should all assume Milo Yiannopoulos is doing all that teaching and educating out of the goodness of his heart, then?

Citizen Rules

01-08-17, 02:28 PM

Well any claim that rape is a culture is propaganda... You need to define 'rape is a culture'...otherwise it's impossible to know what you mean by your objections. And yes I was serious in my question, which you dodge. So I'm asking you again:
what do you mean by rape is a culture?

Yoda

01-08-17, 02:51 PM

again, you're assuming that men who rape are only doing it because they are being denied sex by willing participants
I'm assuming that rape is non consensual by definition, so being "denied sex by willing participants" is a prerequisite for it. So it stands to reason that any gender that is disproportionately denied that consent is going to have more opportunities to commit the offense. Swap out a few words, and I'm basically saying something like "countries with more banks have more instances of wire fraud." It's downright banal, really, which was by design, given the potency of the topic.

and you're glossing over where i said that most rapists actually have willing and available sexual participants in their life.
Saying I'm glossing over it assumes the conclusion; it's only a relevant point if you start with the premise that rape is just about getting off. I don't think that, so there's nothing for me to respond to.

Even if I did think that, though, people obviously aren't interchangeable, so I think the "s" on "participants" is causing some trouble here. If you're sexually rejected by someone, that isn't just going to be psychologically transferable onto any other warm body. Even if someone else has sex with you, you were still rejected by that person.

you keep saying you aren't saying it's just about sex, but the only things i've seen you say about it is that it happens when men feel a loss of power from being 'denied sex'... soo...
You literally just said it, though: "loss of power from..." That's a non-getting-off reason. You even quoted this, from my last post, where I point out that sexual rejection fits either explanation:

"The specific psychological machinations are a separate matter, since all the things you're describing are influenced (and potentially inflamed) by being sexually rejected."

i want to ask you honestly: have you ever spoken to victims of rape before about these situations?
Yes. I don't have permission from the person to say anything that would make them easy to identify, so I'll only say that I was close with such a person once, and we talked about it many times.

But I'm curious: what if I hadn't been? We haven't been discussing my ability to empathize with victims of assault, so what conclusion could have been drawn from it?

cause i have. i was talking to my husband about this subject the other day and when i told him that almost half of the women in my life, that i know personally, have been sexually assaulted at some point, he was shocked. i pointed out to him that there's a probable chance a good portion of the women he knows/have known have been sexually assaulted, too, but women are more likely to talk to their female friends rather than their male friends, which is probably why i'm aware of this and he isn't.
I have no trouble believing that.

alright, i went into research mode. behold. :D

first example: women have been a leading force in sanitation strikes (http://www.labornotes.org/2014/10/women-lead-sanitation-strike-massive-education-complex-china), calling for equal treatment and job security and employment goals (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/meet-new-member-new-york-city-sexiest-strongest-article-1.989851). women have fought long and hard to work in sanitation (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/31/nyregion/2-female-sanitation-workers-earning-high-marks.html), and they're still continuing that effort (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/agency-man-world-women-sewer-workers-sue-dep-unfair-treatment-article-1.418539) to open up the field more. the issue is so big that Parks and Rec made an episode about it, even.

http://www.trbimg.com/img-51030585/turbine/bal-parks-and-recreation-season-5-20130125/600/600x399

another example: sewer work. it's often targeted for its biased hiring practices (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-07-26/news/0207260005_1_construction-supervisor-deep-tunnel-william-ryan). many women have fought for limited available positions (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449512/Pays-OK-hours-stink-Meet-Britains-female-SEWAGE-apprentices.html), but are often turned away, despite having the necessary experience and skills. feminists have long since recognized that these women are willing and able to do the work, but aren’t getting the opportunity to gain employment here.
I don't know much about "sewer work," but that's not something I would have grouped in with, ya' know, firefighting, as having a really obvious, really substantial strength component.

I'm looking through some of those now, though, and they seem pretty mixed. For example, as far as I can tell (I'm stepping away in a minute so I may have I missed one), only one of these is actually about discrimination, and it's just about how a suit has been filed, which doesn't really seem dispositive. Particularly given that the accusers actually say their sexuality may have been the driving factor. Which isn't, ya' know, good, but I'd like to know whether or not we're actually talking about sexism, or just sort of lumping all discrimination together now.

oh, one more example, cause third time's the charm: historically, coal mining is one of the most highly targeted careers for gender bias. women have been petitioning for the opportunity to mine safely since the Industrial Revolution (http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/coalMine.html). matter of fact, this is actually one of the primary and best studied examples of women fighting to enter traditionally male fields (http://libraryguides.berea.edu/womenandcoal).
I'm not sure I follow the link between petitioning for mine safety and gender discrimination. If anything, isn't this a potential explanation? If men just take the dangerous jobs as they are, but women demand increased safety protocols for them, that seems like a pretty clear incentive for people to hire more men. And while someone can object to that, it really wouldn't be an example of sexism: it'd be an example of not wanting to implement safety protocols.

sorry, i should have been more clear: there are more female applicants dominating entrance to medicine, law, and biology undergraduate degrees, particularly medicine/dentistry.
I'll Google this when I get back, but if you see this before then and feel like posting the link related to it, even better. I will say, preemptively, that even when this does improve, one would expect some lag time between a surge in graduations for these things and actual hiring.

christine

01-08-17, 03:19 PM

Oh, definitely. But as you allude to, it's the reasons why that are important. If people have this attitude for arbitrary reasons, that's totally different than having it because women decide to do it much more often.

Yeah, I think a pretty good (and even conservative) case can be made for more state-sponsored child support credits across the board. And really, that's the conversation we should all be having. I think it's really misguided to lay this at the feet of some random middle manager trying to decide whether to hire someone who's just been off work for a year, and someone who hasn't, and expect them not to care about that and to bear the potential cost of it, to boot. That's treating a symptom.

If we think society as a whole will be better off by compensating women for making that decision, then let's call it what it is and talk about a social program, rather than an employment mandate.

Definately a case for more childcare support. Not sure about other countries but the UK is starting to recognise this by now extending some free nursery hours across to 2 year olds as well as 3 year olds. There have been financial cuts to the Sure Start programme tho which helps the children of the most disadvantaged families right at ground level. Sad that.

I do agree with your last paragraph if you substituted 'people' for 'women' :)

My suspicion is there might be a disconnect between what people think happens in aggregate, and their personal experiences. IE: everyone thinks women are unfairly pressured into staying with their children, even if almost no individual women will feel that they were.

hmm, I dunno I don't get the feeling that these days women do feel pressured into staying with their children. I think it's maybe the other way round, feeling pressured into going back to work so as not to lose seniority or experience.

"Tenancy of a pub" = running a pub? If you ran a pub, that'd be perfect, because you have a profound ability to navigate touchy subjects in thoughtful ways, which I imagine would be exactly the kind of skill you'd need to do that job. :laugh:

yeah a pub tenancy is where you buy a business without buying the bricks and mortar. A bit like a franchise but a very particular British pub way of doing things back then. Thanks for the compliment, that's really sweet of you. Running a local pub did feel a bit like running a counselling service with added beer sometimes :D

I love christine. And Yoda. But christine doesn't get enough praise.

aww it's love me day! that makes me smile!

christine

01-08-17, 03:25 PM

i want to ask you honestly: have you ever spoken to victims of rape before about these situations? cause i have. i was talking to my husband about this subject the other day and when i told him that almost half of the women in my life, that i know personally, have been sexually assaulted at some point, he was shocked. i pointed out to him that there's a probable chance a good portion of the women he knows/have known have been sexually assaulted, too, but women are more likely to talk to their female friends rather than their male friends, which is probably why i'm aware of this and he isn't.

If you're talking about sexual assault rather than rape, then I would think it was fair to say well more than half of women. Particularly if you consider what was considered to be ok back in previous decades, and stuff was considered unable to be talked about even with friends.

Yoda

01-08-17, 03:43 PM

I do agree with your last paragraph if you substituted 'people' for 'women' :)
Quite right, that should've said "people." Thanks. :)

hmm, I dunno I don't get the feeling that these days women do feel pressured into staying with their children. I think it's maybe the other way round, feeling pressured into going back to work so as not to lose seniority or experience.
I don't get that feeling, either, at least not from the mothers I know, but I assumed someone would make that contention, so I was trying to address it preemptively.

FromBeyond

01-08-17, 07:33 PM

You need to define 'rape is a culture'...otherwise it's impossible to know what you mean by your objections. And yes I was serious in my question, which you dodge. So I'm asking you again:
what do you mean by rape is a culture?

Rape culture is a setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality. There is disagreement over what defines rape culture and as to whether any societies currently meet the criteria for a rape culture.

Rape and violent crime is way down over the past two decades, feminists will say rape is down because of feminists, it just so happens by chance so is violent crime...

Citizen Rules

01-08-17, 09:48 PM

Thanks for explaining. I had thought you meant something else.

ash_is_the_gal

01-08-17, 11:16 PM

I'm assuming that rape is non consensual by definition, so being "denied sex by willing participants" is a prerequisite for it. So it stands to reason that any gender that is disproportionately denied that consent is going to have more opportunities to commit the offense. Swap out a few words, and I'm basically saying something like "countries with more banks have more instances of wire fraud." It's downright banal, really, which was by design, given the potency of the topic.

Saying I'm glossing over it assumes the conclusion; it's only a relevant point if you start with the premise that rape is just about getting off. I don't think that, so there's nothing for me to respond to.

Even if I did think that, though, people obviously aren't interchangeable, so I think the "s" on "participants" is causing some trouble here. If you're sexually rejected by someone, that isn't just going to be psychologically transferable onto any other warm body. Even if someone else has sex with you, you were still rejected by that person.

You literally just said it, though: "loss of power from..." That's a non-getting-off reason. You even quoted this, from my last post, where I point out that sexual rejection fits either explanation:

"The specific psychological machinations are a separate matter, since all the things you're describing are influenced (and potentially inflamed) by being sexually rejected."

ok... i feel like there's a big miscommunication here and i honestly don't know when or where it started lol, maybe we agree more than we realize, i dunno. i'm gonna try to go back to the beginning of the debate:

my whole argument from the getgo was that sexism/disrespect of women plays a huge part in rape and rape culture because it's about control and power. men, usually being the ones used to being in control, have a harder time letting go of that power, and are therefore more apt to commit these heinous acts. initially i thought you were disagreeing with that, and saying that actually, it's because men find themselves in situations where they are being denied sex more, and that's pretty much the reason why.

would you agree with me here or no? if i've misunderstood or misrepresented your beliefs, i'm sorry.

Yes. I don't have permission from the person to say anything that would make them easy to identify, so I'll only say that I was close with such a person once, and we talked about it many times.

But I'm curious: what if I hadn't been? We haven't been discussing my ability to empathize with victims of assault, so what conclusion could have been drawn from it?

that's ok, i wasn't expecting you to give me specifics if you had them. i was asking mainly because i think actually talking to victims of assault is one of the best ways of understanding the mindset of the perpetrator and the victim. it wasn't necessarily a "gotcha!" moment, i was just honestly curious. i've learned a lot just from hearing my friends who shared their stories with me.

I don't know much about "sewer work," but that's not something I would have grouped in with, ya' know, firefighting, as having a really obvious, really substantial strength component.

i thought we were just talking about fields that are mainly male dominated, where strength is a factor. i think sewer work or sanitation falls in those categories. i threw out the police and firefighting as examples, but i thought the sewer/sanitation/coal mining ones were good examples because they are generally seen as gross jobs that no one wants to do, and i've seen many MRA's say that women don't want those jobs because they aren't willing to do them, not cause they are being denied them.

I'm looking through some of those now, though, and they seem pretty mixed. For example, as far as I can tell (I'm stepping away in a minute so I may have I missed one), only one of these is actually about discrimination, and it's just about how a suit has been filed, which doesn't really seem dispositive. Particularly given that the accusers actually say their sexuality may have been the driving factor. Which isn't, ya' know, good, but I'd like to know whether or not we're actually talking about sexism, or just sort of lumping all discrimination together now.

as soon as i posted that link i knew you were gonna point out the one that was also about discrimination against their sexuality :p

anyway, look at them more when you have a minute i guess. but i'd also urge you to do your own research on the subject since mine has apparently fallen short. maybe look up Mierle Laderman Ukeles if you get an urge to look into this stuff on your own :p she was a HUGE advocate.

I'm not sure I follow the link between petitioning for mine safety and gender discrimination. If anything, isn't this a potential explanation? If men just take the dangerous jobs as they are, but women demand increased safety protocols for them, that seems like a pretty clear incentive for people to hire more men. And while someone can object to that, it really wouldn't be an example of sexism: it'd be an example of not wanting to implement safety protocols.are you referring to the first link i posted under about coal mining? cause it's not really a petition of any kind, it's facts about women (and children) working as coal miners during the Industrial Revolution.

ash_is_the_gal

01-08-17, 11:20 PM

My suspicion is there might be a disconnect between what people think happens in aggregate, and their personal experiences. IE: everyone thinks women are unfairly pressured into staying with their children, even if almost no individual women will feel that they were.

i wouldn't say they are unfairly pressured to stay home, but moreso that it's what is expected cause of gender roles. i do think there are probably some women who would rather have a career but chose to stay home with their children because their significant other has a better paying job with a better chance of promotion. and you're right, i wouldn't say they are unhappy about this - most stay-at-home moms i know are happy with that.

Iroquois

01-08-17, 11:39 PM

Then do you care to explain the gender wage gap lie which is often at the forefront of third wave feminists "problems"

Do you mean the commonly-quoted 77% statistic that got brought up at the beginning of that Stefan Molyneux video you posted? If so, it's a case of how a single numerical statistic does not automatically reflect the numerous factors at play - the Molyneux video definitely touched on that, as did my own research into other sources. It only becomes a lie if one insists on disregarding the context and using it as a concrete fact no matter what side of the issue they're on (especially since the gaps for women of different races is larger anyway). Even if the gap isn't a one-size-fits-all 77%, it's not like it doesn't exist at all - the fact that there is a gap at all is the issue, and the size of the gap itself is only one part of that issue.

Rape culture is a setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality. There is disagreement over what defines rape culture and as to whether any societies currently meet the criteria for a rape culture.

Rape and violent crime is way down over the past two decades, feminists will say rape is down because of feminists, it just so happens by chance so is violent crime...

Yeah, it's a good thing we're not living in a rape culture or else we might have allowed a man with a long history of misogynistic behaviour and rape accusations to be elected president over a woman.

But seriously, as evidenced by the aforementioned gender wage gap discussion, a single statistic does not completely reflect the complicated array of social/cultural factors that would influence said statistic one way or the other. Remember when you referenced Brian Banks and I responded with the comparison to Brock Turner? The discrepancy between their outwardly-similar cases is enough to indicate that there are greater factors at work that can't just be disproved by bringing up one stat.

The Gunslinger45

01-08-17, 11:45 PM

Yeah, it's a good thing we're not living in a rape culture or else we might have allowed a man with a long history of misogynistic behaviour and rape accusations to be elected president over a woman.

Yeah but that same woman was married Bill Clinton, who had his own rape accusations and his own long list of horrible behavior towards women. And she stayed by the guy the whole way and has been accused of intimidating his victims into silence. She is no angel either.

ash_is_the_gal

01-08-17, 11:49 PM

Yeah but that same woman was married Bill Clinton, who had his own rape accusations and his own long list of horrible behavior towards women. And she stayed by the guy the whole way and has been accused of intimidating his victims into silence. She is no angel either.
and if his argument had been that Hillary is innocent and Trump isn't this response would actually make sense

also, can we stop acting like these two things are both equally horrible? because they clearly aren't, as only one of them is a deliberate and violent act

November 7, 2016 called. they want their tired/irrelevant arguments back.

The Gunslinger45

01-08-17, 11:53 PM

and if his argument had been that Hillary is innocent and Trump isn't this response would actually make sense

November 7, 2016 called. they want their tired/irrelevant arguments back.

My point is it is hard to point at Trump and cry "rape culture" as being part of why Hilary lost the election, and ignore Bill Clinton. It just makes no sense and smacks of the typical political crap.

And Bill's allegations came to light decades ago and not just a month or so before an election.

TONGO

01-09-17, 12:02 AM

The Gunslinger45

01-09-17, 12:02 AM

Is Donald Trump a pig of a man? Someone who has said bad things about women, screwed around, and behaved in some shocking manners in the past? Of course he is. We have known this for decades. Bill Clinton is the exact some kind of guy only with less orange skin and an Arkansas accent. But the "misogynist" card was far from the lips of Democrats when Clinton was running for president and re-election.

What really wore me out this past election cycle was the constant labeling of one candidate, when the same could be said of the other one, if not more so.

Sexy Celebrity

01-09-17, 12:03 AM

ash_is_the_gal

01-09-17, 12:05 AM

1 - most rapes aren't reported. look it up.

2 - i think Bill Clinton is gross and misogynistic, too. so, no, #notalldemocrats

The Gunslinger45

01-09-17, 12:06 AM

ash_is_the_gal

01-09-17, 12:14 AM

Hillary is, in a way, condoning her husband's actions, I feel, by the way she steps out in the spotlight and asks people to support her, to vote for her in elections, etc. Bill did all of this stuff while married to her, and she just sticks by him -- because she knows she needs to be married to him and remain looking like a power couple.

She wants people to get over what Bill Clinton did. To forgive him, as she apparently did with him. But the problem is -- not everyone out there is going to forgive him! And THAT's probably one reason why she is not going to be our next President. She is basically like the wife of Bill Cosby going out and trying to become President. She really is.
so people chose an actual rapist over a rape apologist? and this is better somehow? this is the most cringe-worthy thing about this whole argument - one is a very deliberate, violent act and the other is really shetty, but not on the same scale as actual rape.

if that's the actual reason Hillary lost, that's kinda sad. (it's not, i'm just saying if it was)

that's all i'm gonna say about that in here cause i'm not trying to derail another thread with Trump political bs

TONGO

01-09-17, 12:16 AM

1 - most rapes aren't reported. look it up.

2 - i think Bill Clinton is gross and misogynistic, too. so, no, #notalldemocrats

I understand. It just looks incredibly suspicious these women would come forward now. If he was a criminal like Bill Cosby, then there would be talks and rumors for years beforehand. When that girl was raped at the Kennedy compound years ago, it was all over the place. Even Bill Clinton had a much more rumored "piggish" personality than Trump, but Id elect Bill over him 8 days out of 7 anyway.

He's a blight on our country, theres enough besides that stuff to disdain him is all.

ash_is_the_gal

01-09-17, 12:19 AM

I understand. It just looks incredibly suspicious these women would come forward now. If he was a criminal like Bill Cosby, then there would be talks and rumors for years beforehand. When that girl was raped at the Kennedy compound years ago, it was all over the place. Even Bill Clinton had a much more rumored "piggish" personality than Trump, but Id elect Bill over him 8 days out of 7 anyway.

He's a blight on our country, theres enough besides that stuff to disdain him is all.i agree with you wholeheartedly it looks suspicious, and i also think it's incredibly gross if it the info was kept from the public eye just for the "october surprise"

but it's like every time a woman comes forward that she was raped, if she doesn't do it right away she's seen as a liar. which is exactly why women don't come forward most of the time. because people are more worried about ruining the man's life than about her welfare :/

The Gunslinger45

01-09-17, 12:20 AM

1 - most rapes aren't reported. look it up.

I got a masters in criminology. You are very correct.

Most rapes are not reported. We can still get a better feel for rape offenses in non official stats and interviews And rapes do get reported years after they occur. That is the reason why many states have either very long (approx 20-25 years) or no statute of limitations on sexual assault. And there is very good reason. Going through the criminal justice process and facing your accuser in court causes the rape victim to have to relieve what very well may be the single most traumatic event in their lives. Couple that with a defense team who use the most effective and despicable defense for rape: make the victim look like a slut. As such lots of high dollar attorneys will come through the victims lives looking for any piece of dirt to paint a false image of the victim as a loose woman who is angry and wants to smear the rapist. It happens all the time I am afraid. It is no wonder why rape has been THE most under reported crime since probably ever.

Thankfully by comparing said unofficial states to official ones (the FBI UCR data) we have seen that over the years this gap between rapes per year (shown better in the unofficial reporting) and the rapes reported (UCR) data has begun to shrink. Slowly albeit, but it does show that slowly the stigmata of rape that has been around since Biblical times is shrinking. At least in the US.

These woman who are brave and strong and are willing to suffer through hell to name their accuser, they deserve our support. But when the accusers are pointed at a man who is worth billions, has made a public brand for himself for decades, even resurrecting his notability and worth in a very popular reality TV show, only now cry allegations a month or so before a very heated, very ugly, very brutal election is about to end with the polls opening... and one has to treat the allegations with more then a little skepticism. If they got proof of a smoking gun great. Other wise it seems dubious.

Trump still a pig though. No arguments there.

TONGO

01-09-17, 12:23 AM

but it's like every time a woman comes forward that she was raped, if she doesn't do it right away she's seen as a liar. which is exactly why women don't come forward most of the time. because people are more worried about ruining the man's life than about her welfare :/

Yeah. Yeah it is bad. Around 10 years ago I think the statistics for rape was 1 out of 3 women would be sexually assaulted in some fashion before hitting adulthood, for guys it was 1 in 5. If the movie Spotlight was any indicator then by now its much worse.

ash_is_the_gal

01-09-17, 12:24 AM

Because there's no proof that Trump actually did anything wrong except talk dirty about a couple of women while riding around in a caravan thing with some guys. People assume Trump has done all of this horrible stuff, and maybe he did -- but there's no proof. It hasn't been proven, while Bill Clinton has admitted to some of what he did.

it's incredibly hard to prove that someone was raped, even if they do go straight to the police.

with Bill Cosby, the only reason people started believing it was because of the amount of women who stepped forward and how similar their predicaments and experiences were. plus, there's a foundation there. and a court case.

The Gunslinger45

01-09-17, 12:26 AM

I understand. It just looks incredibly suspicious these women would come forward now. If he was a criminal like Bill Cosby, then there would be talks and rumors for years beforehand. When that girl was raped at the Kennedy compound years ago, it was all over the place. Even Bill Clinton had a much more rumored "piggish" personality than Trump, but Id elect Bill over him 8 days out of 7 anyway.

He's a blight on our country, theres enough besides that stuff to disdain him is all.

Tongo you and I will disagree about the "blight on the nation" part. At least for now. I am in wait and see mode.

But I can respect someone who just does not like the candidate based on their politics and policy as opposed to Tabloid fodder.

Iroquois

01-09-17, 12:47 AM

My point is it is hard to point at Trump and cry "rape culture" as being part of why Hilary lost the election, and ignore Bill Clinton. It just makes no sense and smacks of the typical political crap.

And Bill's allegations came to light decades ago and not just a month or so before an election.

Here's the thing: Trump had no problem assembling a number of Bill's accusers during one of the presidential debates in order to discredit Hillary, yet he himself had a number of outstanding accusers who were filing suits against him as well. The hypocrisy involved in this move is staggering. Besides which, his ex-wife Ivana delivered a sworn statement of him committing marital rape decades ago so it's not like this recent wave of accusers was just a completely fresh smear campaign.

Yeah, I repped that because I can see Trump "the pig" but not Trump "the rapist". With his billions these supposed rape victims would have come at him years ago, that smear was just another layer of slime on the election.

Aside from the aforementioned Ivana thing, consider the stigma that affects those who come forth with rape accusations, especially against the rich and famous. The fear of being publicly denigrated is enough to keep people from making reports or accusations for years after the fact - and that's just when the perp isn't a wealthy celebrity. You thinking that they would have come for him years ago simply because he was rich is part of the problem - it's more about getting justice than getting money (though it kind of sucks that people effectively have to accept cash settlements since actual incarceration for publicly beloved figures is such a long shot - just look at what happened with R. Kelly). Also, I can't blame them for coming forward during the election cycle - if the man who sexually assaulted you stood a good chance of becoming the U.S. President, that would be beyond too far.

Is Donald Trump a pig of a man? Someone who has said bad things about women, screwed around, and behaved in some shocking manners in the past? Of course he is. We have known this for decades. Bill Clinton is the exact some kind of guy only with less orange skin and an Arkansas accent. But the "misogynist" card was far from the lips of Democrats when Clinton was running for president and re-election.

What really wore me out this past election cycle was the constant labeling of one candidate, when the same could be said of the other one, if not more so.

Meanwhile, what wore me out was the media narrative that attempted to present both candidates as being equally bad in the interest of "fairness". Hillary definitely has her flaws, but at least she's a somewhat competent veteran of politics who can sort of be trusted to do the job. The Donald, on the other hand...

Sexy Celebrity

01-09-17, 12:51 AM

Here's the thing: Trump had no problem assembling a number of Bill's accusers during one of the presidential debates in order to discredit Hillary, yet he himself had a number of outstanding accusers who were filing suits against him as well. The hypocrisy involved in this move is staggering. Besides which, his ex-wife Ivana delivered a sworn statement of him committing marital rape decades ago so it's not like this recent wave of accusers was just a completely fresh smear campaign.

It might have been a hypocritical move, but he did what he felt he had to do to win the election. Whatever works.

Meanwhile, what wore me out was the media narrative that attempted to present both candidates as being equally bad in the interest of "fairness". Hillary definitely has her flaws, but at least she's a somewhat competent veteran of politics who can sort of be trusted to do the job. The Donald, on the other hand...

It isn't just about the people who are trying to become President. It can also be about the parties and what they represent and believe in. Maybe people have just had enough of 8 years of the Democrats and their beliefs about things.

Iroquois

01-09-17, 01:10 AM

It might have been a hypocritical move, but he did what he felt he had to do to win the election. Whatever works.

That doesn't make it any better.

It isn't just about the people who are trying to become President. It can also be about the parties and what they represent and believe in. Maybe people have just had enough of 8 years of the Democrats and their beliefs about things.

It doesn't help that Citizen Tang was more than willing to buck the GOP party line and embolden disenfranchised demographics in the process.

The Gunslinger45

01-09-17, 01:10 AM

Here's the thing: Trump had no problem assembling a number of Bill's accusers during one of the presidential debates in order to discredit Hillary, yet he himself had a number of outstanding accusers who were filing suits against him as well. The hypocrisy involved in this move is staggering. Besides which, his ex-wife Ivana delivered a sworn statement of him committing marital rape decades ago so it's not like this recent wave of accusers was just a completely fresh smear campaign.

Ivana was decades ago true, but the new ones were a month before the election. And the Ivana and Donald had a very public tabloid fueled divorce. Which resulted in no charges.

Again, you don't like Trump? Fine. So long as it is for policy, political performance, or lack there of in your case. But the tabloid BS is just that.

Iroquois

01-09-17, 01:18 AM

Ivana was decades ago true, but the new ones were a month before the election. And the Ivana and Donald had a very public tabloid fueled divorce. Which resulted in no charges.

Again, you don't like Trump? Fine. So long as it is for policy, political performance, or lack there of in your case. But the tabloid BS is just that.

See what I wrote to TONGO in that same post.

The Gunslinger45

01-09-17, 01:20 AM

See what I wrote to TONGO in that same post.

I did. It is still shaky. Also if you haven't seen my post concerning rape stigmata as a response to Ash, check it out.

TONGO

01-09-17, 01:24 AM

I did. It is still shaky. Also if you haven't seen my post concerning rape stigmata as a response to Ash, check it out.

Yeah I repped Iros post on that because he could be right, the injustice would be too much to swallow for a victim, possibly. It really would have helped greatly if even one person had come forward years ago, then more followed suit like Bill Cosbys accusers did, instead of it all happening within 3 months of the election.

Really gross stuff. Damn, Bernie really would have been a good President guys.

The Gunslinger45

01-09-17, 01:33 AM

Yeah I repped Iros post on that because he could be right, the injustice would be too much to swallow for a victim, possibly. It really would have helped greatly if even one person had come forward years ago, then more followed suit like Bill Cosbys accusers did, instead of it all happening within 3 months of the election.

Really gross stuff. Damn, Bernie really would have been a good President guys.

It could. But most people are going to want more information or some semblance of proof. Most people want to believe the rape victim. That is going to be the normal reaction of most people in America. But given the circumstances, the timing, and the entire big picture the accusations are at the best shaky, and at the worst, dubious.

The Gunslinger45

01-09-17, 01:34 AM

Yoda

01-09-17, 12:14 PM

ok... i feel like there's a big miscommunication here and i honestly don't know when or where it started lol, maybe we agree more than we realize, i dunno. i'm gonna try to go back to the beginning of the debate:
Yeah, I dunno how we got twisted up, but no worries. The main thing is: we agree rape is not just about sexual release.

my whole argument from the getgo was that sexism/disrespect of women plays a huge part in rape and rape culture because it's about control and power. men, usually being the ones used to being in control, have a harder time letting go of that power, and are therefore more apt to commit these heinous acts. initially i thought you were disagreeing with that, and saying that actually, it's because men find themselves in situations where they are being denied sex more, and that's pretty much the reason why.

would you agree with me here or no?
Yes and no. I'd agree that's part of it. I'd only disagree (and I'm not convinced this is what you're even saying) that it's enough of an explanation by itself.

Maybe this is a more helpful way to put it: I think a disparity should be expected given the hugely disproportionate number of situations in which men are sexually rejected. But I also think that this disparity is bigger than is mathematically (for lack of a better word) necessary, because men are more violent by their very nature. Though I do want to preemptively point out the distinction between the nature of men, and simply "used to being in control." I think it's a lot deeper than just habit, or even culture, and I think masculine impulses aren't as juvenile as "I want to be in charge and I'm mad when I'm not" (again, not that you're saying they are).

So what I was bristling about originally was not the idea that men are just more inherently violent, because they obviously are. It was just the idea that any disparity in sexual assault is proof of this, when I think some disparity would be expected either way.

Basically, I'm arguing against the idea that differences in outcomes are proof of sexism. Men and women are different, and there's literally no reason to expect that equality under the law, or even equal esteem within the culture, would lead to identical outcomes in anything. I'm not sure if anyone literally said otherwise, but that's the implication if someone simply cites a difference, as if that makes the point by itself.

i thought we were just talking about fields that are mainly male dominated, where strength is a factor. i think sewer work or sanitation falls in those categories.
That's probably true, though I totally buy that women apply for those jobs far less, out of genuine disinterest. That first link you posted contained some line about the sanitation department saying they don't get many applicants.

I think sexism exists, but I also think most of the people handling the hiring in anything close to an entry-level field are really desperate for good, reliable workers, and that that's usually their primary concern.

And here's the nice thing: even if we do nothing, places that don't hire qualified women? They're at a competitive disadvantage. They will literally lose money on account of their prejudice. Competitors who don't share that prejudice will benefit.

i threw out the police and firefighting as examples, but i thought the sewer/sanitation/coal mining ones were good examples because they are generally seen as gross jobs that no one wants to do, and i've seen many MRA's say that women don't want those jobs because they aren't willing to do them, not cause they are being denied them.
I think treating women like a hive-mind (a pet peeve of mine on both ends of the political spectrum) is obviously silly. But do we agree that it's usually true, even if not universally? That fewer women are going to be interested in filthy and/or dangerous jobs relative to men?

are you referring to the first link i posted under about coal mining? cause it's not really a petition of any kind, it's facts about women (and children) working as coal miners during the Industrial Revolution.
Yeah, I suppose I took that opening line about safety protocols to suggest that this was something people were fighting to change, but perhaps I was extrapolating there.

Anyway, since that first one's about women and men working side by side, what conclusion are you saying we should draw from it?

Yoda

01-09-17, 12:37 PM

Even if the gap isn't a one-size-fits-all 77%, it's not like it doesn't exist at all - the fact that there is a gap at all is the issue, and the size of the gap itself is only one part of that issue.
I can dig up some of the studies in question if necessary, but the ones I recall seeing that actually controlled for basic factors (industry, seniority, hours worked, etc.), and they all found either a gap the other way--with women earning slightly more--or a gap so small that it was indistinguishable from statistical noise. IE: 95 cents on the dollar.

I realize this is often lumped alongside more dubious anti-feminist arguments, but in this case, it's a legitimate complaint: there's a lot of really blatant misinformation floating around about the pay gap, and it's amazing how much of it gets passed around uncritically.

Slappydavis

01-09-17, 07:45 PM

I can dig up some of the studies in question if necessary, but the ones I recall seeing that actually controlled for basic factors (industry, seniority, hours worked, etc.), and they all found either a gap the other way--with women earning slightly more--or a gap so small that it was indistinguishable from statistical noise. IE: 95 cents on the dollar.

I know I'm not the one you were directing this toward, but I'd like to see those studies.

I've been out of the game for a couple years now, but when I was an econ undergrad the only wage gap work in labor economics that approached widespread acceptance (though not universal) was "Gender, Inequality, and Wages" (http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665853.001.0001/acprof-9780199665853). IIRC, that work definitely shows a narrowed gap after controlling for industry/time served at occupation, but it certainly didn't vanish or go in the other direction. That said, I read it originally in college while I had access to our online library, and just now I tried for a while to confirm my memories by finding a way to read it again without paying a ridiculous amount, but no luck so far, I'm sure there's something out there and I'll look again later.

(By the way, the hot research issue when I left was about wage negotiation, which I haven't read all of but I recall a few studies that argued both [1] part of the wage gap is explained by women not negotiating for higher wages as effectively as men but that [2] women were just as effective as men at actually negotiating for wage increases, and IIRC even better than men, when it was on behalf of another party. Generally implying that there is some sort of ingrained stigma against women arguing for their own wage increases [either in their own minds or the minds of others]. It's also interesting because when I was looking around for the studies you mentioned I ran into this study (https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=662005122118000107087122114106016030056072085041037020022056031096095050064089028031 081066032059075091080003076001017125077112113094079069100104025030001090099089100022119001104&EXT=pdf) on the different effects of testosterone on the wage gap, according to this study it seemed like men who had higher prenatal testosterone exposure [which is linked to being more masculine] had higher wage returns than those without, but that women who had higher testosterone exposure did not experience such a benefit; seemingly implying that it's not the market even simply rewarding masculinity, but just when it's males showing that masculinity [implying bias, imo]. But that's just a thought, the study did not argue that and I didn't come across one that did during my brief check.)

But I'd also caution about saying that a gender gap doesn't exist because it doesn't control for industry; it's not hard to imagine that part of the issue itself is that (A) industries with predominately female workers are underpaid relative to their generated value [i.e. the industry itself experiences some sort of blanket bias] or (B) women are pressured to participate in those less equitably paid industries [or at least aren't as encouraged as men are], or some sort of combination.

Basically, if someone said that (X) wage gap doesn't exist because (X Group) should simply get better paying jobs, I can't help but feel like part of the point was missed?

Regardless, even if controlling for industry (and other factors) is a categorical mistake, I still haven't seen anything that said there wasn't a gap after controlling for them, so I'm legitimately curious in any case.

I'll jump ahead a bit here too and say that you and I might even be in line on our thinking, because the general solutions I'd want to see tried first are solutions that let the market function better, though we might disagree on what function better means. The things I see creating a better labor market are paid family leave (for anyone) and getting more women into those other, higher paying industries. If we work on making those things we have to control for moot, and a pay gap is still there, then I think we can agree there's something else going on. Or if it disappears then we've really made progress, and we all can move on to a different argument.

Yoda

01-09-17, 08:59 PM

I know I'm not the one you were directing this toward, but I'd like to see those studies.
Sure. There's What Do Wage Differentials Tell Us about Labor Market Discrimination? (http://www.nber.org/papers/w11240) by June and David O'Neill, which finds controlling for those factors basically eliminates it. Money quote: "There is no gender gap in wages among men and women with similar family roles."

The American Association of University Women conducted a similar study in 2012, though I can't find it online. But I found two (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2012-08-13/don-t-blame-discrimination-for-gender-wage-gap) articles (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html) from that time period referencing it, which each said they put the difference around 5-6%.

Perhaps most significantly, the U.S. Department of Labor put out a study in 2009 (http://web.archive.org/web/20150302004030/http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf) covering dozens of peer-reviewed papers on the topic, and similarly puts it between 5-7%.

I'll have to get back to you on the reverse gap thing. There's a 2010 study that, in large cities, young, single women earn more than young, single men (http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html), but that's obviously a little narrow (though still kinda hard to reconcile with the idea of society-wide sex discrimination). That wasn't the one I was thinking of, though, so let me see what I can find.

For the record, I don't think there's a reverse gap, and I think there could easily be some gap. But if there is, I think it's very small, to the point where it would be hard to say with much confidence that it exists at all, and harder still to chalk it up to sexism. 20% gaps can only be explained by big, glaring problems, but a 5% gap could be explained by a lot of relatively innocuous things.

(By the way, the hot research issue when I left was about wage negotiation, which I haven't read all of but I recall a few studies that argued both [1] part of the wage gap is explained by women not negotiating for higher wages as effectively as men but that [2] women were just as effective as men at actually negotiating for wage increases, and IIRC even better than men, when it was on behalf of another party. Generally implying that there is some sort of ingrained stigma against women arguing for their own wage increases [either in their own minds or the minds of others].
Yeah, I've heard of that: that simply asking, or not, is a huge factor. Maybe it's as simple as convincing women it's okay to ask for raises.

It's also interesting because when I was looking around for the studies you mentioned I ran into this study (https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=662005122118000107087122114106016030056072085041037020022056031096095050064089028031 081066032059075091080003076001017125077112113094079069100104025030001090099089100022119001104&EXT=pdf) on the different effects of testosterone on the wage gap, according to this study it seemed like men who had higher prenatal testosterone exposure [which is linked to being more masculine] had higher wage returns than those without, but that women who had higher testosterone exposure did not experience such a benefit; seemingly implying that it's not the market even simply rewarding masculinity, but just when it's males showing that masculinity [implying bias, imo]. But that's just a thought, the study did not argue that and I didn't come across one that did during my brief check.)
Does it necessarily imply that? I think other possibilities fit the data. For example, maybe testosterone helps at high levels, but not low ones. Even women with very high testosterone levels will produce much, much less than even a low-T man. The baselines are totally different, and I don't know why we'd assume the effect is linear.

I'd also feel pretty safe assuming that men are more likely to work in fields where increased testosterone was beneficial in the first place. It probably helps construction workers, but I doubt it does much for clerical work. Probably just the opposite, in fact, since higher testosterone correlates with lower attention spans, IIRC.

Basically, if someone said that (X) wage gap doesn't exist because (X Group) should simply get better paying jobs, I can't help but feel like part of the point was missed?
I guess that depends on what you think "the point" is. It seems to me these arguments are almost invariably a response to one of those totally raw numbers, like "women make 77% as much as men," in which case I'd say it addresses the point pretty directly. Particularly when you consider the rhetoric that usually accompanies that number, like the phrase "equal pay for equal work," which the President used a number of times. When someone uses that number and that phrase in conjunction, they're basically lying.

It could miss the point if it were the response to a thoughtful, nuanced argument about broad societal priorities, I guess. But that's not what people are outraged over, and not what it's generally a response to. People are outraged over the idea that women are getting paid less for doing the same thing. The idea that prioritizing something over your work will affect your wages, on the other hand, is decidedly less outrageous.

Or if it disappears then we've really made progress, and we all can move on to a different argument.
I'd like to think so, but I'm skeptical it would make a difference. If people (leaders in particular) don't care about even basic methodological questions now, I dunno why they'd stop using this stuff to gin up outrage with a couple more data points.

Yoda

01-09-17, 09:02 PM

Also, I simultaneously like and hate your replies, because they're always thoughtful and substantive, but in a way that means I have to be particularly thorough and considered in my response, which can be weirdly exhausting. So...thanks? ;)

Slappydavis

01-09-17, 09:10 PM

I'll have to take some time to go over those links, so the only part I'll address right now is:

It seems to me these arguments are almost invariably a response to one of those totally raw numbers, like "women make 77% as much as men," in which case I'd say it addresses the point pretty directly. Particularly when you consider the rhetoric that usually accompanies that number, like the phrase "equal pay for equal work," which the President used a number of times. When someone uses that number and that phrase in conjunction, they're basically lying.

I can agree with the basic premise here. If they are trying to make a point about inequality within industries but use numbers about inequalities between industries without making the distinction obvious, they are being a bit misleading, and likely intentionally so.

Also, I simultaneously like and hate your replies, because they're always thoughtful and substantive, but in a way that means I have to be particularly thorough and considered in my response, which can be weirdly exhausting. So...thanks? ;)
I agree, and you post a lot more than me so I have no idea how you do it. I only respond to your stuff when I feel like really putting something thoughtful together, because I have actually have to.

Makes my arguments better though, or at least I scrap bad ones.