|
| Thread: Did Feminists Lied/Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood? |  This thread is pages long: 1 10 ... 14 15 16 17 18 ... 20 30 31 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted July 29, 2014 02:20 AM |
|
|
Tsar said:
And reality is, if a woman wants to reduce the chances of being sexually assaulted or harassed then she should to cover her body. That is fact.
Yeah, that's the idea:
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 03:24 AM |
|
|
Orzie said:
Quote:
What's comparable to that is the penis of a man.
You wanted to say "clitoris", didn't you? Don't mix up the primary and secondary sexual characteristics.
you know men are also not allowed to wear sleeveless in a formal setting.
My point is that men and women has different expectations in different settings. Just because they are not equal in every single setting doesn't mean they're oppressed.
artu said:
Jemo, I don't think you are even from US, since someone who's native tongue is English, wouldn't say things like "did they lied" or "overexaggerate." Exaggerating is overdoing something anyway, you don't overoverdo it. And I am not talking about your fantasies, you can bet all the gold in the world that I haven't got the slightest interest in what your imagination (or lack of it) would fictionalize. Just in the post above, you said:
"did they lied" was a typo.
But anyway, I've always wanted to be an American. Well, any country that has an interesting history. Celtic Britain comes into mind. But yeah, you're right. I'm not from the US. But I do go there from time to time ever since I was a kid. My cousins are living there.
I've been to three states at least and the way I see it, women are not oppressed at all. In fact, American women are kind of aggressive. Oh and don't give me the "hey you're still not a native here" line because I have a lot of friends in the US and base on their experience, I know quite a lot of your culture.
For instance if a woman hits a man, he is not allowed to hit her back. If he does, white knights or the girl's brothers or male friends will beat him up to a pulp. There's even one friend of mine who has a boy and his female classmate was hitting him. When the boy got angry, the girl said "you're not allowed to hit me because I'm a girl". Yes, women are strong and independent indeed.
Yeah, I may not have time to read all through these stuffs but whenever I see something wrong, I shouldn't keep my mouth shut. I mean, it's wrong.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 03:26 AM |
|
|
artu said:
Tsar said:
And reality is, if a woman wants to reduce the chances of being sexually assaulted or harassed then she should to cover her body. That is fact.
Yeah, that's the idea:
Can't argue with results.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 03:37 AM |
|
|
artu said:
Tsar said:
And reality is, if a woman wants to reduce the chances of being sexually assaulted or harassed then she should to cover her body. That is fact.
Yeah, that's the idea:
yes, anything related to sexual harassment is a main concern of women but it is ignorable.
One of men's primary concern is being treated like an ATM machine or a useful tool. What I mean by this is the attractiveness of a man is measured by how he is useful not who the person is.
Yeah, not all women treat men that way but not all men sexually harass women also.
But yeah, there will always be things like these. The best solution is just to thicken it up. Words can't hurt you. Sexual harassment without contact can't hurt you(except if it's your boss but read my next sentence). At least with sexual harassment, there are laws against it. In fact, a few women are taking advantage of it (false rape allegations). If a woman marries a working man and files a divorce, taking half his assets with her, there are no consequences for her.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 04:16 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 04:21, 29 Jul 2014.
|
Tsar said:
Can't argue with results.
It's not just about the results, 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 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." Once again, think of the beaches, everyone is practically in their underwear, yet harassment is not an overwhelmingly common thing in beaches, is it? Why, because it's not the level of nudity that causes men to harass, it's the social assumption that a certain way of dressing is "asking for it," associating appearance with invitation. The specifics of that certain way vary from culture to culture, but the assumption that it is YOU she is asking for does not. So, the actual point is, once again to repeat myself:
artu said:
Quote:
I have a question for people at HC: What do you think of people that walk up to girls to ask their number, e-mail or facebook outside of bars and outside of parties or otherwise social gatherings?
I think they're slimy creeps.
I think if you are not a jerk, these things sort of handle themselves. Most of the time, it is quite easy to figure out if a woman will be irritated or not when you approach her, by instant eye contact and if you get to misunderstand the signals in those first few seconds, she will make sure you get it right in the following few. They are not soft-hearted about refusing strangers. So, as long as you don't insist on sticking around and get persistent about your intentions when you face rejection, it's no big deal. Some people meet like that and they get married a year later.
You say, some men are animals and they wont get that but the same men get it perfectly clear when on a beach. So, it's really not about not being able to control yourself at some level of nudity, it is about what you assume, a learned way of thinking which can indeed be modified. And we're not talking about "world peace" here, it is an achievable goal in the foreseeable future. Of course, there will always be a few morons beyond help but that's not your average harasser, they are marginal examples.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 04:43 AM |
|
|
wait, what form of harassment are you talking about?
Men and women are also harassed at the beach. I don't think harassment outside the beach is common either.
I think you're talking about the one wherein people comment about what nice ass they have or how good their boobs look?
I really don't get those types of women. You dress like that in order to get noticed. I mean, why else would you dress sexy and not expect people to have a reaction over it. Cause and consequences artu, cause and consequences.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 07:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It's not just about the results, 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,
That contradicts itself. If someone correctly adapts to the given situation then the violation of rights would never take place. For the love of christ for the third time, preeevention. A woman can take positive steps to reduce the chances of harassment, this is what I'm pointing out. And NO this does NOT make the woman liable (technicality it does, but it would be immoral act on this technicality) for her being harassed, and it does NOT mitigate the offender even if the woman dressed provocatively. (not in this day and age in civilized nations anyhow)
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 07:33 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 08:15, 29 Jul 2014.
|
|
Rights are about when you don't have to adapt to the situation. And my argument against your post is obviously not "they have a right not to", that is the argument I specifically emphasize that I'll be skipping, since YOU ALSO SAY, it is indeed their right but it wouldn't be wise.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 07:40 AM |
|
|
No, it is not, adapting to a situation (may include foreseeable risk) is a matter of prudence. You do not have to, but you'll be better off if you do. (though depends on your given agenda)
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 07:51 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 08:16, 29 Jul 2014.
|
|
You'll be better off is not a matter of what rights you have, you have a right to be not prudent. It is you who contradicts with himself, you just wrote the same thing I said. You do this so often and on such a simplistic level, I doubt your sincerity. Don't violate the very ABC of logic if you want your words to count for something. "You do not have to" literally means you have a right not to.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 08:35 AM |
|
|
I don't see the point of a right you are better off not to make use of - or does anyone?
It's like with the abolition of racial segregation or apartheid. Suddenly you had a right to visit locations formerly off limits for you - but of course you'd be better off not to make use of that right.
Why is that? Because yesterday it would have been wrong? Not really. Because, if it was wrong - against the law - what COULD have happened was that someone called the cops and you'd have been arrested. What WOULD have happened though, is a rough beating.
That line of argumentation is based on accepting certain disbalance of power. Making use of your rights means, laughing the actual power in their face - which is the provocation.
Basically, a woman that's harassed because of "provocative clothing" is harassed, because the harrassers are angry that they are teased and are not allowed to do anything about it. They are "played" - and they can't let that pass. It's simply a power thing.
You see, something beauftiful SHOULD be watched - it's beautiful, after all. However, the impulse to OWN that thing is sick. Not that which is beautiful and doesn't cover their beauty.
And wisdom... If we'd exclusively do what is wise, life would be utterly boring, right? Not to mention that we would still live in caves, since it wouldn't be wise to leave them for more than food-gathering.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 08:51 AM |
|
|
Is harassment (or not to be harassed) a right was not the question, in the first place, that was a moot point everybody agreed upon. Since Tsar edited his recent post after the replies, it looks a little repetitive know, the original post was only this:
Tsar-Ivor said:
Quote:
It's not just about the results, 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,
That contradicts itself. If someone correctly adapts to the given situation then the violation of rights would never take place.
Needless to say, there is no contradiction at all. And my post does not keep on with the issue of rights afterwards anyway, I move on just like say I will and object to the expectations of prudence by saying the norms that cause that prudence to be a necessity are very open to change.
It feels boring to repeat this but every once in a while Tsar just decides to impulsively ignore even the simplest elements of consistency and logic.
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 11:31 AM |
|
Edited by Steyn at 11:32, 29 Jul 2014.
|
JeremiahEmo said:
Sal said:
JeremiahEmo said:
Name one right a man has that a woman hasn't in America.
Showing boobs publicly.
that's biological. A chest of a man isn't comparable to the boobs of a woman since it isn't labeled as a private part.
I would argue that it's cultural, not biological. In many (more primitive) cultures the breasts are not covered, while the genitalia are.
So our western culture oppresses woman such that they cannot bare their breasts.
On a side note, aren't there places in the US where showing boobs publicly is allowed?
JeremiahEmo said:
I really don't get those types of women. You dress like that in order to get noticed. I mean, why else would you dress sexy and not expect people to have a reaction over it.
Maybe woman dress 'sexy' because they don't like wearing that many clothes? When you wear short sleeves, is that so you can show off your muscular arms? When you go topless, is that because you want to show off your nice torso? For most men the answer will be "No, it is too warm for long sleeves/a shirt". I can imagine it is the same for woman. As artu pointed out, on the beach they are practically in their underwear.
artu said:
Once again, think of the beaches, everyone is practically in their underwear, yet harassment is not an overwhelmingly common thing in beaches, is it? Why, because it's not the level of nudity that causes men to harass, it's the social assumption that a certain way of dressing is "asking for it," associating appearance with invitation. The specifics of that certain way vary from culture to culture, but the assumption that it is YOU she is asking for does not.
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 11:49 AM |
|
|
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.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 01:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Needless to say, there is no contradiction at all. And my post does not keep on with the issue of rights afterwards anyway, I move on just like say I will and object to the expectations of prudence by saying the norms that cause that prudence to be a necessity are very open to change.
It feels boring to repeat this but every once in a while Tsar just decides to impulsively ignore even the simplest elements of consistency and logic.
And it feels very boring when you make up fantasy rights. There is no human right or otherwise that supports your wild claims that prudence is not required for what you'd achieve with it is provided in a right, if there is then provide it.
And I edited that post before you made either one of your previous two posts, so I have no idea what your problems is, not like you spent much time on them anyway. (to justify the annoyance) If you cannot produce anything reasonable then I fail to see the point of responding to you, I only do so now because I feel provoked to defend myself, and my line of argument.
Quote:
Needless to say, there is no contradiction at all
There is no contradiction in your mind only, because your judgment is based is some imaginary right that makes it so that there's a violation of one's rights at the point of one having to think for oneself and modify his/her behavior in favor of harmony/peace/no confrontation: Quote:
Rights are about when you don't have to adapt to the situation.
My argument is that violation of one's legal rights only occurs once the harassment takes place, which does not if the situation is evaded through prudence. It's perfectly logical, and based in reality.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 01:34 PM |
|
|
Tsar-Ivor said:
My argument is that violation of one's legal rights only occurs once the harassment takes place, which does not if the situation is evaded through prudence. It's perfectly logical, and based in reality.
Which is of course true for everything: you can't be harmed if you prudently avoid all potential harm - but that's the philosophy of the right- and powerless, and constitutional and legal rights have exactly the purpose to relieve you from always making the deepest bow, beg your pardon for each and everything and ... have a little fun.
To do so - to "prudently avoid all possible harm" - would CEMENT a position of powerlessness, of bowing, and eternally accept that.
You could, in other words, submit.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 01:49 PM |
|
|
The objective isn't necessarily to avoid harm, more to do with avoiding conflict with a given environment, or accurately foreseeing the nature of an environment that will be encountered, and adapting. Submitting without losing integrity. The intelligent must sink to the level of an unintelligent individual if the desire is peaceful coexistence, (for more reasons than one, but foremost because intelligent can, and the unintelligent can't) does that make the intelligent person submissive or any less intelligent? No, makes him both wise and intelligent. Treating everyone as you'd treat yourself is ludicrous, you must have empathy, even for those plagued by ignorance.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 02:25 PM |
|
|
I tend to see that differently, because history has shown that the combination of power and ignorance is incalculable insofar that even the best avoiding strategy may still net you unwanted attention.
Changes for the better will happen only when there are - sadly - victims.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 02:45 PM |
|
|
Yes many things come into play, luck among them, at best all I can say is that the way you apply yourself reduces the probably of an encounter. Not that it is impossible to accurately determine the best code of conduct in a given situation to achieve the desired aim, but that is the pinnacle of this line of thought/behavior, but I have no experience of this. (not that it matters, my original statement dealt with reducing the probability of an encounter)
People are not changed because a law is passed, or a movement gains support, some may adapt to the new way of things because it is the new norm in order to avoid conflict, (and little loyalty to their old school of thought) while the others would become reclusive. Society changes depending on how the new generations is educated, martyrs aren't not required for that.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 03:08 PM |
|
|
Steyn said:
JeremiahEmo said:
Sal said:
JeremiahEmo said:
Name one right a man has that a woman hasn't in America.
Showing boobs publicly.
that's biological. A chest of a man isn't comparable to the boobs of a woman since it isn't labeled as a private part.
I would argue that it's cultural, not biological. In many (more primitive) cultures the breasts are not covered, while the genitalia are.
So our western culture oppresses woman such that they cannot bare their breasts.
On a side note, aren't there places in the US where showing boobs publicly is allowed?
JeremiahEmo said:
I really don't get those types of women. You dress like that in order to get noticed. I mean, why else would you dress sexy and not expect people to have a reaction over it.
Maybe woman dress 'sexy' because they don't like wearing that many clothes? When you wear short sleeves, is that so you can show off your muscular arms? When you go topless, is that because you want to show off your nice torso? For most men the answer will be "No, it is too warm for long sleeves/a shirt". I can imagine it is the same for woman. As artu pointed out, on the beach they are practically in their underwear.
artu said:
Once again, think of the beaches, everyone is practically in their underwear, yet harassment is not an overwhelmingly common thing in beaches, is it? Why, because it's not the level of nudity that causes men to harass, it's the social assumption that a certain way of dressing is "asking for it," associating appearance with invitation. The specifics of that certain way vary from culture to culture, but the assumption that it is YOU she is asking for does not.
* 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 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.
|
| |
|
|
