|
| Thread: Did Feminists Lied/Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood? |  This thread is pages long: 1 10 ... 16 17 18 19 20 ... 30 31 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
posted July 29, 2014 05:46 PM |
|
|
kipshasz said:
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.
I'm sorry for not being clear. I meant you can't show off your shoulders when in a formal setting. A woman can.
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 05:51 PM |
|
|
So you've conceded on arms but now you're fighting for shoulders? This is ridiculous.
____________
none of my business.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 06:03 PM |
|
|
Steyn said:
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.
Sorry for not being clear again. I didn't mean the claims on statistics, I meant the claims on the reason. Are you sure that it's because of discrimination or oppression or is it because of personal choices? A person who has the philosophy of innocent until proven guilt would believe the latter while the exact opposite, guilty until proven innocent would believe the former.
The thing wrong with "we already have enough men" is that it is sexist in itself. You are looking at the gender, not the individuality. You are fighting sexism with sexism.
I also disagree with the needs and wants part. The only reason for needs I can come up with is the gender bias you brought up which may or may not be true (again, yes you have statistics but it doesn't explain the reason). I highly believe women are dropping out in the organizational ladder because of personal choice not because of oppression.
So yeah, it is something you want. You want that to happen because it'll satisfy your feminist ideology. It's not something you need.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 06:04 PM |
|
|
veco said:
So you've conceded on arms but now you're fighting for shoulders? This is ridiculous.
gah, arms, shoulders, they're on the same line. I wanted to say biceps but that would make me gay. hehe, just kidding. 
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 06:15 PM |
|
|
Please stop.
____________
none of my business.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 06:17 PM |
|
|
Tsar-Ivor said:
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.
very good point Tsar. This needs to be quoted for further emphasis. Yes, it's all about being adaptable. Besides, sexual harassment can't hurt you. If they make physical contact, you can send them to jail.
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 07:05 PM |
|
|
Our society consists for 50% of woman. Isn't it strange then that the representatives of that society are (almost) all men? Even with less woman at the top because they choose for the kids (which is also (partly) because of cultural gender stereotyping) this seems a bit strange. I would say a gender quota is quite in-place here. It is what, 25%, 30%?
JeremiahEmo said:
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.
Is that why you dislike woman so much? Because you didn't get a job because of a quota? And are you even sure that was the reason, not that she was just better suited for the position?
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 07:09 PM |
|
Edited by Steyn at 19:10, 29 Jul 2014.
|
JeremiahEmo said:
kipshasz said:
JeremiahEmo said:
veco said:
JeremiahEmo said:
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.
I'm sorry for not being clear. I meant you can't show off your shoulders when in a formal setting. A woman can.
Steyn said:
BTW, going sleeveless in a formal setting is frowned upon, but there is no LAW against it.
Steyn said:
JeremiahEmo said:
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.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 07:21 PM |
|
|
^ yeah I know, there's no law about that. It's a social norm. However, I just gave you tons of what women has that men don't. And here, let me repost it.
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.
******************************************************************************************************
Oh and on another news, I just recently watched a good prank call video in youtube. The woman clearly said she's gonna use false rape allegations on the prank caller knowing full well that they'll take her word for it with or without proof just because she's a woman.
|
|
Sal
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 07:36 PM |
|
|
JeremiahEmo said:
* Females are protected by law from genital mutilation. Males are not.
If circumcision removed the head of your burrito, it would be punishable and banned from all modern societies, for sure.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 08:04 PM |
|
|
Steyn said:
Our society consists for 50% of woman. Isn't it strange then that the representatives of that society are (almost) all men? Even with less woman at the top because they choose for the kids (which is also (partly) because of cultural gender stereotyping) this seems a bit strange. I would say a gender quota is quite in-place here. It is what, 25%, 30%?
JeremiahEmo said:
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.
Is that why you dislike woman so much? Because you didn't get a job because of a quota? And are you even sure that was the reason, not that she was just better suited for the position?
Wait, wait. I never said I dislike women. I said I like the patriarchy. I like women. I have a lot female friends. But I also like to hang out with my bros, develop male camaraderie, have a male-only space and whatnot. But I guess you can't understand that because you're a feminist.
Also, my experience wasn't about men and women, it was about favoring one group and diss out the other. I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I hate sharing my personal life but let me do it just this one time. I was actually one of the 5 people that got promoted. Since our group and the unpromoted people got into a fight, our manager, who was also managing the other group's project leaders, limited our advantages. The other group didn't get any sort of punishment. Her reasoning was that we are the ones promoted so we should be the more humble ones. See my point?
Well, it was actually a very stressful job and the salary didn't compensate. The removed advantages was the last nail in the coffin to push 4 of us to resign.
Anyway, my point is, favoring one group at the cost of the other, or from what I termed, fighting sexism with sexism will not solve anything. You're expecting people to shut up, be humble about it for a speculation that only you and other feminists see. People won't take that lightly.
Also, if a woman gets the job over me because she's more competent, then I would accept that since she beats me fair and square. If it's because of your proposed quota then that's just unfair. I know quite a few intelligent women that are against quotas. According to them, it's insulting and it undermines their hardwork and intelligence.
About your first point, I don't think it's strange at all. Different fields attract different gender. Different lifestyle attract different personalities or rather biology.
Don't you find it strange that a lot of men choose the engineering and other object-related jobs while a lot of women choose social-related jobs? No, it's not strange, it's biological. A professor one time made experiments on newly born boys and girls and boys tend to choose toys designed for boys like cars and tools while girls tend to go for barbie dolls. A psychologist says this is due to evolution and biology.
I'm running away from the main issue here but my point is that your argument isn't strange at all. Men and women tend to make different choices.
Also, are you talking about gender quotas in the US currently in place?
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 08:06 PM |
|
|
Sal said:
JeremiahEmo said:
* Females are protected by law from genital mutilation. Males are not.
If circumcision removed the head of your burrito, it would be punishable and banned from all modern societies, for sure.
are you sure? male circumcision is still quite common in many societies I know.
Prove your statement. Give us a link to laws that prohibit male circumcision especially in the US.
|
|
Sal
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 08:15 PM |
|
|
|
What I said was that male and female circumcisions effects are not comparable. This is why the first is still legal and the second is not.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 08:31 PM |
|
|
But bottomline is, there are still boys who died from circumcision.
Plus it's still a law women has over men.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 09:23 PM |
|
|
No, it's a "Religuion trumps common sense" law. Actually circumcision is the visible sign of the bond of MALE Jews with Lord Jehovah.
I think, the stalwart Finns got circumcision finally prohibited. Germany made a m ove, but the Suprme Court said, sorry, religious practise, law is protecting it.
I think it's mutilation, but, who cares what I think.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 09:23 PM |
|
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 09:27 PM |
|
|
female genital mutilation is different from male genital mutilation though. Usually, the clitoris is SEVERED OFF with a razor blade and then the vaginal lips are sewn shut with twine. FGM is unacceptable in Western Society, so it's always either done in a tribal context or clandestinely.
Meanwhile, male circumcision is MOSTLY done within a medical context and is therefore fairly safe if performed by a skilled physician. There's always a risk, I suppose. Personally, I am strongly opposed to male circumcision except for the few cases where it's actually medically beneficial - such as phimosis and infections. Regardless, you cannot compare MGM to FGM and rule them equal. The execution is different and much more dangerous and painful for women - hence why it's banned in most societies.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 09:40 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:49, 30 Jul 2014.
|
|
Male circumcision is way more traditional and considered a routine by Jews and Muslims even if they are not strictly religious, it's kind of like baptism of Catholics. In Turkey, most secular people choose to do it in a hospital while the baby is very small, while religious ones go through with it by having a ceremony when the kid is around 7,8. None of my parents are religious so I was circumcised while I was a week old. All males of Muslim ethnicity I know of are circumcised, while a lot of them are not religious at all. I don't think there is a serious risk (although I'm sure there are exceptional cases) because all through these years I have never heard of anybody getting injured while getting circumcised.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2014 11:49 PM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 30, 2014 12:11 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:14, 30 Jul 2014.
|
|
I don't support it. I couldn't care less if the tradition died out. All I'm saying is, it is not something as dangerous and horrific as you guys imagine. I can relate to how hideous it must appear when you are not culturally used to it, like when I watch those Africans put a bone through their nostrils, I go "uuurgh" but they do it like cutting their finger nails. Or think of it like having your ear pierced, not much of a big deal is it, in terms of physical injury. It's not like they cut your balls off, it's just a very tiny little piece and looking at porn, there is no visually distinguishable difference between a circumcised and an uncircumcised penis.
|
| |
|
|
