|
| Thread: Did Feminists Lied/Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood? |  This thread is pages long: 1 10 ... 15 16 17 18 19 ... 20 30 31 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
posted July 29, 2014 03:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Men are not allowed to wear sleeveless in a formal setting while women do.
You made that up.
____________
none of my business.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 03:20 PM |
|
|
Tsar, either you are trying to pull the biggest of your usual crap or you really don't know what contradiction actually means. What is annoying is, that it takes 5 posts for you to realize even the simplest elements of consistency:
YOU say:
- Many men are, 'beasts' as you claim, it would be wrong to just ignore that. Dressing provocatively as much as it pains me to say it, is asking for it, since you're in your own little bubble pretending the world isn't what it is. You sexually provoke the animals in our society then the consequences are pretty obvious. It's not about right or wrong, or how men ought pretend to behave around a woman with less than a tea-cloth worth of clothing on her. It's about being wise, being able to foresee the consequences of your actions.
YOU also say:
- I've stated clearly that having oblique intent doesn't mitigate the crime/malicious act. I was merely pointing out that many humans (most imho) have difficulty exercising self restraint, or fail to see the need to because they don't sense the gravity of their acts.
I say:
- I'll skip how wrong it is to expect the other person to behave because you are the one who'll be violating her rights, since your (Tsar's)position is "it is not right but it is the way it is." The important thing here is, it's really not a fact that won't change as in "cancer will kill you, sorry for the inconvenience."
You then suddenly decide to say:
- That contradicts itself. If someone correctly adapts to the given situation then the violation of rights would never take place.
As I stated, the only one in contradiction here, is YOU. And since JJ, already stated the obvious, I wont get into explaining how absurd and intrinsically against the very idea of having a right, it is to claim "legal rights only occurs once the harassment takes place, which does not if the situation is evaded through prudence."
Get your concepts straight or go sit in the troll table with Jemo.
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 03:23 PM |
|
Edited by Steyn at 15:25, 29 Jul 2014.
|
JeremiahEmo said:
* Yeah, probably cultural. But I disagree with the female oppression with that. Men are not allowed to wear sleeveless in a formal setting while women do. Does that make men oppressed?
Yeah, a little. Luckily we can still wear sleeveless in most other places 
BTW, going sleeveless in a formal setting is frowned upon, but there is no LAW against it.
Quote:
* Yeah that makes sense. I agree it's wrong to tell a woman she's asking to get raped if she's just wearing clothes that are enough to get those cool breeze but some girls wear mini skirts that are way beyond their knee. Like probably halfway from the knee to their hips. That's already trying to get attention.
Now you just sound old fashioned. At what point does wearing a short skirt turn from wanting to have less fabric covering your legs into wanting to show of as much leg as possible. Sure, many woman will also wear it to make themselves look attractive, but if it didn't feel nice wearing it, much less would.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 03:34 PM |
|
|
You will adopt at the very least the minimal level of courtesy when addressing me, not tolerating your idiotic attitude any longer, if you cannot self restrain yourself I'll avoid you like I have in every other discussion where you crossed the line.
Quote:
It's not about right or wrong, or how men ought pretend to behave
It isn't about how men ought to behave. I established that if the man is unintelligent, (beast like as it is clearly shown in the bloody quote) and I'd like to point out that I've said this 4 times now that a wise and intelligent person is the one that adapts, a man with animal like mind (unable to exercise self restraint) is not capable of restraining himself, therefore an intelligent and wise person (woman in order to link it to the theme of the discussion) must adapt to the unintelligent man in order to reduce the probability of conflict, if that is the desired outcome. I'd understand if you were confused and needed clarification, but your attitude is just despicable.
If a man was getting sexually assaulted then I'd just flip it vise versa, but that isn't the theme of the discussion.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 03:46 PM |
|
|
Steyn said:
I see a lot of discussion about whether woman have less rights than men in western society. I think we can conclude that the feminist did a great job of securing equal rights. What I believe to be now the biggest problem is cultural inequality. We are raised with the believe that man and woman are not equal.
This is reflected in the choices people make when hiring/promoting people, hence the glass ceiling. The problem with cultural inequality is that it is mostly subconscious. The CEO doesn't think like "This candidate is a man, so he must be more suited for this job than that female candidate", but when choosing there is a preference. Also because the way certain characteristics are valued are different for man and woman.
As long as we are raised with ideas like woman are supposed to take care of the children, woman are bad in abstract thinking, man are technical and man are brawny, fighting gender inequality will require rules such as a female quota.
Actually, I disagree with the glass ceiling's existence.
Check this video. This is coming from a successful female psychology professor:
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLKQezaz2IA[/video]
I also disagree with the implementation of quotas. What if the job hardly attracts women? What if the only women that are applying are incompetent? This hurts business. We've already seen this happen. Have you heard of Adria Richards? I forgot what her job was. I think she was a web security administrator or something. When you hear her talk technicalities, it's like she does not know what she's talking about.
If you look at it on a more individual standpoint, this is also oppression but a reverse from what you're thinking. What if you have a man and a woman applying for the job and it was crystal clear that the man was far more competent. They have only one spot left. If they give the woman the job only because they have to keep up with quotas, wouldn't that be oppression for the man?
Lastly, I hardly know any employer that thinks of promoting the man because of stereotypes. Most employers I know looks at their record and individual skills.
There's in fact one employer I know, who's a close friend of mine by the way who said he tends to favor women in the hiring process. I don't know if he was joking but knowing his personality, he likes to surround himself with eye candies and looking at his team, it's 80% women. Yeah, I don't think this is common but since we're on the topic, I just want to share it.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 03:49 PM |
|
|
veco said:
Quote:
Men are not allowed to wear sleeveless in a formal setting while women do.
You made that up.
Huh?! Are you trolling?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 03:54 PM |
|
|
No substantial answer just as I guessed...
My objection addressed to what you stated 4 times(!) is not based on a platform of rights, that had been PUT ASIDE and without any contradiction. And as of now, I am showing you more courtesy than you actually deserve by explaining the very obvious for the 4th time:
I have zero problem reading what you wrote, I didn't object to it by saying "it's her right to dress however she likes and that's it." But you already know that, don't you. Only this time I wont waste my time explaining what I already explained quite lucidly, again and again. I take it you chose the table. I wont be hearing you from the other side of the room. Bye bye.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 04:05 PM |
|
|
But nobody is forcing you to wear a particular clothing, (not in civilized western nations) there isn't a breach of your rights if you decide to restrict your own right to clothing in order to reduce the probability of getting harassed. This is not how it would be in a perfect society, but it is reality.
My argument centers on the fact that women can make positive acts to reduce the probability of being harassed, this is fact. Contemplating laws and rosy changes and talking about the morality of it is all fine, but it's a separate point, one which doesn't help the women being harassed today, and it is based in fantasy. (even if it will become a reality in a year or a decade it is still a fantasy today) Working toward that goal/dream is not what I'm addressing, if you wish to raise a point regarding that then do so.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 04:12 PM |
|
|
Women get harassed regardless, except if they wear a huge scarf that hides their face and a big jacket that makes them look like the michelin man.
And you may just get harassed anyway!
Having to dress and act in restrictive ways to avoid harassment is oppressive and your opressor may always choose to harass you anyway, even if you decided to look as blobby as possible. Saying a smart woman may dress a certain way to avoid harassment is silly, when everyday wear tends to be enough to get harassed anyway. Safest thing to do is befriend a bunch of burly men to take on your travels anyway.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 04:18 PM |
|
|
With that argument, shouldn't everyone look poor, in order to not raise desires? Drive a better-than-standard car? Unwise - attracts the envious. Good clothing? What will the homeless make of it? Nice house? Attracts only burglars.
In short - with that attitude, why have laws in the first place?
Which is to say - also not for the first time - that yours is the argument of the powerless in a society ruled by those who may decide to harass you.
But the wiser you behave, the more natural that behavior becomes, until it's considered (unwritten) law, at which point suddenly everyone is in danger of getting harassed who just makes use of their right.
Rights are useless, if nobody makes use of them, and victims are inevitable, until the public dog brain registers things and it clicks.
The assassination of Martin Luther King did more for equal rights of the blacks than everything else. Martyrs ARE the stuff changes are made of.
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 04:20 PM |
|
|
JeremiahEmo said:
Actually, I disagree with the glass ceiling's existence.
Check this video. This is coming from a successful female psychology professor:
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLKQezaz2IA[/video]
Basically what she says is that it is even worse than a glass ceiling. Man are systematically favoured over woman on all levels of employment.
Quote:
I also disagree with the implementation of quotas. What if the job hardly attracts women? What if the only women that are applying are incompetent? This hurts business. We've already seen this happen. Have you heard of Adria Richards? I forgot what her job was. I think she was a web security administrator or something. When you hear her talk technicalities, it's like she does not know what she's talking about.
If you look at it on a more individual standpoint, this is also oppression but a reverse from what you're thinking. What if you have a man and a woman applying for the job and it was crystal clear that the man was far more competent. They have only one spot left. If they give the woman the job only because they have to keep up with quotas, wouldn't that be oppression for the man?
Lastly, I hardly know any employer that thinks of promoting the man because of stereotypes. Most employers I know looks at their record and individual skills.
I don't think you quite get these quota. They are only in place for management jobs like councils and boards. Then if there is a free position and the quota is not met, a female candidate is looked for. Why would they accept male applicants if they cannot hire them anyway?
When there is a vacancy where both man and woman can apply for and woman are somehow favoured, then this is always in case of equal qualifications.
I am not saying female quota are perfect, but unfortunately in this male-centred society they are necessary. As I said, when those stereotypical gender roles have disappeared from our society, then we won't need such measures as a female quota.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 04:23 PM |
|
|
Steyn said:
JeremiahEmo said:
* Yeah, probably cultural. But I disagree with the female oppression with that. Men are not allowed to wear sleeveless in a formal setting while women do. Does that make men oppressed?
Yeah, a little. Luckily we can still wear sleeveless in most other places
BTW, going sleeveless in a formal setting is frowned upon, but there is no LAW against it.
Quote:
* Yeah that makes sense. I agree it's wrong to tell a woman she's asking to get raped if she's just wearing clothes that are enough to get those cool breeze but some girls wear mini skirts that are way beyond their knee. Like probably halfway from the knee to their hips. That's already trying to get attention.
Now you just sound old fashioned. At what point does wearing a short skirt turn from wanting to have less fabric covering your legs into wanting to show of as much leg as possible. Sure, many woman will also wear it to make themselves look attractive, but if it didn't feel nice wearing it, much less would.
* Women can wear topless too, just not in public if you get my point.
Also, it would feel awkward to have people walking around half naked though. I'm just against it. If they're gonna equalize that, I say both genders shouldn't be topless in public. But yeah, I guess that's one right a man has that a woman doesn't.
But that doesn't mean they're more oppressed than men, I can name a few rights a woman has that a man hasn't.
* You just proved my point with the "many women wear it to make themselves look attractive" line. But yeah, I disagree. I know a lot of women wear clothing to make themselves look good even if it's uncomfortable.
Miley Cyrus too says hello.
Also, I've seen a lot of women who wears mini skirts but keeps pulling it down for some reason. Like wtf?! I really don't get how a woman's brain works.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 04:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Also, I've seen a lot of women who wears mini skirts but keeps pulling it down for some reason. Like wtf?! I really don't get how a woman's brain works.
I see a lot of men wearing pants practically on their knees and no one bothers them (they're not gangbangers. That doesn't exist in Belgium.  ). And a woman's brain tends to be pretty much the same as the male brain, except for a few hormonal differences.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 04:28 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:34, 29 Jul 2014.
|
Tsar-Ivor said:
But nobody is forcing you to wear a particular clothing, (not in civilized western nations) there isn't a breach of your rights if you decide to restrict your own right to clothing in order to reduce the probability of getting harassed. This is not how it would be in a perfect society, but it is reality.
My argument centers on the fact that women can make positive acts to reduce the probability of being harassed, this is fact. Contemplating laws and rosy changes and talking about the morality of it is all fine, but it's a separate point, one which doesn't help the women being harassed today, and it is based in fantasy. (even if it will become a reality in a year or a decade it is still a fantasy today) Working toward that goal/dream is not what I'm addressing, if you wish to raise a point regarding that then do so.
Okay, now, that IS a relevant answer and I will gladly treat it with the courtesy it deserves. Welcome back.
No, it's not a fantasy. It's an already, slowly changing reality. That's why we take sides over it. My country, having both western and eastern elements, would be a good example. Nobody legally forces you to wear this or that here, either. Only the "hey, if she wears it she's asking for it, sad but true" rhetoric is much more common among men, sometimes without the "sad but true" part. Sociologists even have a special term for such things, Mahalle Baskisi: The Oppression of the Neighborhood.
But the more people treat the streets as they treat the beaches, the less significant and oppressive it gets. As I already said, there will always be a few men beyond help or "beasts" as you call them but your average harasser is not a beast, he's a regular man who had interiorised that rhetoric. That's why, ironically, the more conservative the country gets, the more harassers it produces.
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 04:32 PM |
|
|
JeremiahEmo said:
* Women can wear topless too, just not in public if you get my point.
Also, it would feel awkward to have people walking around half naked though. I'm just against it. If they're gonna equalize that, I say both genders shouldn't be topless in public. But yeah, I guess that's one right a man has that a woman doesn't.
But that doesn't mean they're more oppressed than men, I can name a few rights a woman has that a man hasn't.
Please do. And to be clear, we are talking laws here, not social norms.
Quote:
* You just proved my point with the "many women wear it to make themselves look attractive" line.
My point was that not everyone wears sexy clothing just to look sexy. That there are people who do so does not weaken my argument. On top of that, who says it is not allowed to dress comfortably and look good at the same time?
Quote:
Also, I've seen a lot of women who wears mini skirts but keeps pulling it down for some reason. Like wtf?! I really don't get how a woman's brain works.
This also completely rattles me 
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 04:49 PM |
|
|
Steyn said:
JeremiahEmo said:
Actually, I disagree with the glass ceiling's existence.
Check this video. This is coming from a successful female psychology professor:
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLKQezaz2IA[/video]
Basically what she says is that it is even worse than a glass ceiling. Man are systematically favoured over woman on all levels of employment.
Quote:
I also disagree with the implementation of quotas. What if the job hardly attracts women? What if the only women that are applying are incompetent? This hurts business. We've already seen this happen. Have you heard of Adria Richards? I forgot what her job was. I think she was a web security administrator or something. When you hear her talk technicalities, it's like she does not know what she's talking about.
If you look at it on a more individual standpoint, this is also oppression but a reverse from what you're thinking. What if you have a man and a woman applying for the job and it was crystal clear that the man was far more competent. They have only one spot left. If they give the woman the job only because they have to keep up with quotas, wouldn't that be oppression for the man?
Lastly, I hardly know any employer that thinks of promoting the man because of stereotypes. Most employers I know looks at their record and individual skills.
I don't think you quite get these quota. They are only in place for management jobs like councils and boards. Then if there is a free position and the quota is not met, a female candidate is looked for. Why would they accept male applicants if they cannot hire them anyway?
When there is a vacancy where both man and woman can apply for and woman are somehow favoured, then this is always in case of equal qualifications.
I am not saying female quota are perfect, but unfortunately in this male-centred society they are necessary. As I said, when those stereotypical gender roles have disappeared from our society, then we won't need such measures as a female quota.
* nope. What she's saying is that if the glass ceiling exist, there would be a lot of women at the near top of the organizational hierarchy trying to break this so-called glass ceiling. Instead they are scattered all over different levels which is somewhat saying the glass ceiling is imaginary.
It's not that men are systemically favored (that's systemic, not systematic by the way), it's that women make their own personal choices.
She was implying that women left their careers because they want to be with their families. See, you can't choose eat a cake and expect it to still be there. You have to choose: family or career. And I do think women has more responsibility with children because of choice, not oppression.
*
fred said:
Why do they accept male applicants if they don't hire them anyway?
yeah, good point, don't waste the man's time. Still it's oppression. It's like saying "white men need not apply". By the way, that actually exist. Probably, that doesn't sound oppression to you so let's reverse it. It's like saying "white women need not apply".
* Well, that certainly made it less sexist than what I thought it was but still, I'm not feeling the quota. It's like fighting sexism with sexism. You know what I mean?
You're trying to make one group feel better at the cost of the other group to feel bad. I and 4 of my colleagues were in a similar situation. The end result was 4 of us resigned.
And lastly, I don't think your claims exist. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't but none is proven. I'm rather leaning to the idea of innocent until proven guilty, you know what I mean? Yeah, maybe it was like that 70 years ago but nowadays, it hardly exist.
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 05:04 PM |
|
Edited by veco at 17:04, 29 Jul 2014.
|
JeremiahEmo said:
Huh?! Are you trolling?
Funny you would say that and as much as I would like to say that I am trolling - I'm not. That's just an extensive enough answer that your claim deserves.
____________
none of my business.
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 05:11 PM |
|
Edited by Steyn at 17:14, 29 Jul 2014.
|
JeremiahEmo said:
fred Steyn said:
Why do they accept male applicants if they don't hire them anyway?
yeah, good point, don't waste the man's time. Still it's oppression. It's like saying "white men need not apply". By the way, that actually exist. Probably, that doesn't sound oppression to you so let's reverse it. It's like saying "white women need not apply".
* Well, that certainly made it less sexist than what I thought it was but still, I'm not feeling the quota. It's like fighting sexism with sexism. You know what I mean?
You're trying to make one group feel better at the cost of the other group to feel bad. I and 4 of my colleagues were in a similar situation. The end result was 4 of us resigned.
And lastly, I don't think your claims exist. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't but none is proven. I'm rather leaning to the idea of innocent until proven guilty, you know what I mean? Yeah, maybe it was like that 70 years ago but nowadays, it hardly exist.
What claims are you talking about? May I refer you to this research from 2013:
Women held 14.6 percent of Executive Officer positions
Women held only 8.1% of Executive Officer top earner slots.
In both 2012 and 2013, one-fifth of companies had 25 percent or more women Executive Officers, yet more than one-quarter had no women Executive Officers.
There is a subtle difference between we don't want men and we already have enough men, but we are still looking for a woman. And as I already said, a quota is not something we want, but something we need.
|
|
kipshasz
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's Darkside
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 05:16 PM |
|
|
JeremiahEmo said:
veco said:
Quote:
Men are not allowed to wear sleeveless in a formal setting while women do.
You made that up.
Huh?! Are you trolling?
heh, I have a fancy sleeveless linen shirt, which is compatible with a suit.
your argument is invalid.
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 05:44 PM |
|
|
Steyn, sorry for the delay, my internet connection broke. Anyway, here's the list:
* Females are protected by law from genital mutilation. Males are not.
* Females can use male washrooms, males can be arrested for doing the same.
* Females can opt out of selective service with no negative affects. Males don't have that same choice.
* Females are not banned from any domestic violence shelters. Males are frequently denied that option either due to location or shelter policy.
* Violence against Women act selectively discriminates against men based on sexual dimorphism. Men are physically larger on average and policies that factor in 'size' are biased against men.
* Any law based on the Duluth Model selectively discriminates against men.
* Laws that force married men to pay child support on children they did not father.
* Laws that prevent men from being able to opt-out of fatherhood if a women chooses not to abort or give away for adoption an unwanted child.
|
| |
|
|
