|
| Thread: Did Feminists Lied/Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 20 ... 27 28 29 30 31 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
posted August 15, 2014 02:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There is no way to get rid of the sex urge, as that fella Freud will tell you.
Oh, yes, somewhere between talking about how sex is super scary and about how there's an ego, superego and an id, Freud was like: "We totally wanna bone, though. All the time. We're like animals."
(Stop being pseudo-intellectuals. It's really cool that you heard about Freud, but I know for a fact, you haven't read a single word he's written in your life. Text books only detail his description of the ego, super ego and id and REALLY BAD text books detail about the edipal complex and that's it. Modern psychology doesn't care about anything else Freud said.)
I respectfully disagree, zenofex. I think humans have long surpassed their "eat, fight, snow" instincts. I know it's supercool to think of humans as beasts without morals or principles that never heard of Maslov's pyramid of needs, but that really isn't me and I can name at least a few other friends of mine that don't think the same way. Funnily enough, the only people who seem to think this way seem to be people that can't form meaningful relationships or maintain them with others and are sexually frustrated.
From this point of view, they can't think of anyone but themselves in their lives as actors. Everyone is an object (except them of course, they are the last man), an object of resistance, of desire, an object to aspire to etc etc etc. But that's okay, man. I think a large part of the western world consists of narcissists.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 03:01 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:04, 15 Aug 2014.
|
Actually, I have like 7 or 8 of his books, my favorite one being "On Art and Artists" where he analyses the works of Goethe, Dostoyevsky and Shakespeare but thank you for assuming we only heard of him in cafeteria talk, anyway.
And about the text books, naturally, today's academic work is based on neurological data far more complex and how chemicals in the brain cause this and that but Freud's basic conceptualizations are not flushed down the toilet as you suggest. He can be seen like some of those Ancient Greek philosophers; although not scientists in the modern sense, their methods lead to a path that resulted in that. Id or superego are of course, metaphysical elements by today's standards, yet for example, we still use id, shortly to mean "primal urges beneath the conscious mind" and saying you do have primal urges beneath the conscious is not an outdated statement.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 03:22 PM |
|
|
Saying that they rule your every action is flat-out wrong. And it wasn't aimed at you, artu (didn't even see your post until I posted mine, gosh). You didn't start talking about the guy, as if he was relevant to this discussion. But yes, creative works would be products of the ego or superego. What the man seemed to suggest is that we're all 100% id.
And I didn't mean to say Freud is unimportant, I mean to say he's largely unimportant save for the foundations he laid (like the layers of the psyche).
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted August 15, 2014 07:43 PM |
|
Edited by smithey at 19:46, 15 Aug 2014.
|
JeremiahEmo said:
I'm only gonna reply to Smithey because apparently, the other feminists has gone down to name calling and personal attacks. Let's keep it civil guys.
Anyway..
1.a. Titanic
I understand that and I can see that it's reasonable.
However, I have two points to present.
One, titanic proved that women weren't as oppressed as feminists say they are. Yes, you're right, it's the strong helping the weak. Throughout history, men loved their women. There might be a few that were bad to their women but the general view of history was that men cherished women's lives over their own. That's the point I've been trying to make here. Of course, women weren't generally allowed to compete with men in the workfield in history generally, I won't deny that but to say that women had it bad all throughout history is exaggerating it. Men made it so because back in the days, we don't have the technology to ease they heavy physical labor most work needed. Men worked harder, more of men died in work and in the battlefield while having the benefits while women worked less harder in easier conditions. It's the gender roles.
Feminists has been demonizing men. They've ignored the good things men has done for women.
Two, what do you think about these famous feminist phrases?
"Women don't need a man",
"Women are strong and independent" and
"Anything a man can do, a woman can do better, with heels"
I will not yet say what's my stand on those phrases yet. I'm not saying it's negative but I'm not saying it's positive either. You'll know when you give me your answer.
1.b
actually, there has been cases wherein the man has been arrested when both the man and the woman fight. Not only that, the general view of society has always been, if a woman is abused, people jumps in to help her. If the man is abused, people will just pass by.
Yes, I understand that men are bigger but it does not give women an excuse to keep hitting men over and over again. Men are NOT robots.
1.c
Actually, in my experience, the guy smacking the girl around meant trouble for the guy. She talked to their network of friends and the guy was hated instantly. Even his friends, including myself thinks lowly of him. Society or the place that I'm living in at least frowns on men beating women. I can't say for the opposite though.
In a similar situation but different people, the guy gets abused by his girlfriend. He didn't want anyone to know about it because he's ashamed.
Now I'm not saying that vice versa of each situation does not exist. What I'm saying is it's snow for anyone who does not know how to handle the situation.
A lot of people tried to bully me in gradeschool and highschool but I always find a way to send bullies my message: "you don't want to mess with me" in my own way. There were two people who tried to bully me but as soon as I acted, they stopped.
Where do I live? I'm sorry, I won't disclose that information. I fear for my safety. No, I'm serious. I've angered a lot of feminists. The whole Adria Richards fiasco and feminists shooting Erin Pizzey's dog is proof enough.
I mean, what are the odds artu, Adrius or Meroe are radical feminists? No, just kidding. But I won't take that chance. 
I'm Asian by the way. I have very little native and white blood but it's very little, it does not show.
2.
I'm not very familiar with South America but in some societies, best or one of the best, which can be attributed to strong are sacrificed.
The Vikings for example sacrificed Swedish men, Swedish MEN. Their analogy was, you have to give the gods something good.
The Aztecs didn't care if you're strong or weak. If you're not an ally, you have been conquered, then you'd be sacrificed to the gods.
The Mayans, same with the Aztecs.
3.
Oh, so you're an economist. Interesting.
You do realize that physical labor is not always the hardest right?
Question is, will people want to be engineers/architects/comptuer programmers if it's a lower paying job?
How much wealth does these specific jobs contribute to society?
Supply and Demand. You're an economist, you should be able to answer that.
4.
There are fewer minorities because they are minorities. They are fewer in number duh.
You still haven't disprove that it's more about choice rather than discrimination.
Basically, none of our explanations are proven correct since there's no research about it.
Mine is it's because of choice (aka innocent until proven guilty). I also find this more logical.
Your's is it's because of oppression (aka guilty until proven innocent).
5. China
I'm sorry, I didn't phrase my sentence correctly.
It's men that are bringing in the money.
Yes, I admit, you're right about it being the lesser of two evils.
I have to admit, I don't know much about China and right now, I'm too lazy to research but if you can prove that there's a law prohibiting women from doing these high-paying jobs you mentioned then you win this part of the argument.
6. smithey said:
Real men dont kill the weak ones (women and children), that's our state of mind, that's why killing another man is ok.
point is, there is no equality
well, that's telling.
Basically, if women are disadvantaged, "it's oppression, get rid of it."
If men are disadvantaged, "there is no equality."
I'm not advocating violence on any human being, man or woman but women asked to be in the same level as men. Let them. We should give them all the benefits of being a man but we also must give them all the bad perks of being a man.
Children should be the only ones exempted from the violence.
I know some of you might quote your favorite part of this post but I'm always here to append the rest of it. Keep doing it, it's only gonna be good for my cause in the long run.
7. Your Cause
If you listened to Karen Straughan, the link I gave you, you'd know what I mean.
Feminists are known to manipulate data or exaggerate a woman's experience. They also tend to speak for all women even though not all women agree with them. Some feminists I debated with in the past lied to my face. She didn't know I was History literate.
I would really advise you to listen to her. It would be also good for you because you'd get into the minds of some MRAs.
8.
Actually, that's two. Earl Silverman and Erin Pizzey.
Yes, there are men's shelter in the US but how many of them are government-funded? That was Earl Silverman's case.
I'm actually ok with man's shelter not being government-funded but women's shelters are. That's one advantage women has over men in our society.
9.
If feminist radicals didn't have too much power, I wouldn't mind them.
10.
Man, I appreciate the advise you've given me but I've assessed myself and I'm better off alone. I'm currently enjoying what I do. You don't need to do something when it sacrifices what you currently love doing right? Sacrifice, yes because relationships need a lot of time and effort. I don't want to go through that effort.
Also, I understand where you're coming from, I really do. Sex is fun and women are oppressed in that regard. However, I still think one is not better than the other. The pressure of getting women can also be equally dangerous.
What if the man just can't get a woman? What if he's ugly?
I say men shouldn't be pressured to get a woman and women shouldn't be called snows when playing with multiple men. I haven't heard of a man saying a female player is a snow before. Mostly, I hear it from women.
11.
Smithey said:
Yes, would you rather be a woman ?
No. I'm proud of who I am. I'd sure love to get a woman's benefits in society though.
12.
- Women should avoid fighting men physically. They shouldn't abuse our white knighting society. However, there are a lot of cases wherein a woman punches a man and the man can't fight back because white knights will jump at him.
- not all men are twice bigger than any women. Even so, you're treating women like kids and men like adults. We already have feminism. Women should be treated like men shouldn't they? Therefore, if a woman does something wrong, we should hold her exactly as accountable as a man regardless of what their sizes are.
- You think making fun of a woman's driving skill is comparable to making fun of a man's penis being cut off? Really?
A comparable thing to making fun of a man's penis getting cut of is something like, laughing at a woman's vagina being scraped for female genital mutilation being or stabbing her boobs 5 times.
- yes I agree but false rape accusations do heavier damage to a man than a woman. It only hurts woman's image as a whole. It destroys a man's life completely.
13.
Smithey said:
I agree they have more rights than us, but all those rights mean nothing really coz this is our world...
Really?
Like... really?
Smithey, I started respecting you at the beginning of your post but as I read through, I'm thinking you're either trolling or you're just replying just for the sake of replying.
Ok, I'll play along. You haven't proven anything that this is our world. Can you explain more?
If I remember correctly, if one group has more rights than others then it is "their world" whatever that means.
If a woman can silence you for saying something bad about women and if they say something bad about men, it's ok, then it's "their world".
Example: say anything misogynistic or even something that disagrees with women as a gender. The whole world will be against you and you're called a misogynistic sexist pig. Man, I don't know why you can't see this.
Now, a woman saying anything about men.. like for example Denaerys Thargaryen saying "All Men Must Die.. we are exempted because we are not men" is accepted by society. Some even post it as their banner in their blogs.
Obama said "women are smarter than men". Everyone applauds.
If Obama said the opposite, regardless of how he implied it, there would be a huge uproar.
14.
Smithey said:
False, women were property of men throughout most of history, so it doesnt matter how oppressed the "poor" man was, his wife was always beneath him as is property, always more oppressed, by default.
ok, but throughout history, men also died in war for women, prioritized women's lives over their own and made society a good place for women to live in.
Does that mean everything a man has over a woman in modern western society shouldn't matter? Wait, let me think of something men has over women. Oh right, nothing. You haven't proven anything so far.
15. How Men and Women got Their Rights to Vote
but women also weren't expected to work hard. They had the easy life throughout history.
16. Rape Rape and more Rape
I think we're on an agreement with rape but I think the failed system is due to not having a better one. If you have a proposal, I'd like to hear about it.
17.
Dude, there are many kinds of power. I don't see how being a man has an advantage in job interviews. Probably biological, yes, I agree with that since women has to deal with being the vessel to a child. Maybe in the future, if scientists can invent artificial wombs, women won't have to deal with it. Also, man, you just can't say majority of prison inmates are minorities, hence minorities are oppressed. You should know by now that I am very concerned with why.
Getting back on topic, women holds a lot of power in our society.
1. Family Courts as we've both agreed on.
2. Breeding. Women can force a man to pay for child support because it takes a man and a woman to make the child. If it's abortion, it's solely the woman's decision. Apparently, taking a man and a woman to make the child is thrown out the window.
3. Never Hit a Woman but Women can Hit a Man - self explanatory
4. Say something bad about Women, misogynist! Say something bad about men, it's ok - self explanatory
5. Sexuality - as we've discussed earlier, since men are taught to chase women, women can use her sexuality to manipulate a man. We've already seen this happening with some male feminists.
and so on..
18. 25% domestic violence victims are males
Smithey said:
Its not..
it is...
19.
I've offended a bunch of females who are not feminists? If they're not feminists then they shouldn't be offended with anything I say.
20.
ignorance for feminists is always synonymous with not agreeing with feminism. And that my friend is a manipulative tactic.
21.
Smithey said:
I wasn't arguing pro feminism, I just claimed you're delusional in thinking women have it better than us, make that extremely delusional.
and I've explained my case. If you can't see it, then my arguments are not for you.
22.
actually, I've been very open to feminists. I've always given them a chance. There's a difference between open-minded and taking every idea gospel. However, a lot of feminist mindset are bogus.
Meh, one cant have a discussion with a man as delusional as you are...
Whoever says something which doesnt suit your view is a feminist.
Women are actually oppressing you.
You are afraid to say where you're from coz crazed feminist (who isnt even a feminist) will go hunting down nameless asian dude in his twenties somewhere in Colorado/Taiwan/whatever.
You're talking about history but are extremely ignorant in many regards of it, heck you quote urban legends thinking its the truth coz you've read it in some propaganda or heard some ignorant retard say so.
You are an Asian who thinks minorities are equals to white men (this one makes me think you've never travelled anywhere, and that you're hiding under some rock).
Minorities holding 2% of top positions is normal as they are only 40% of the population, it's an equal ratio in your world.
Women wont get prosecuted for assaulting you, thats what the law states... lol what a joke.
Women have only advantages, males have it bad, minorities have advantages, white men have it bad.
Useless... You portrait a perfect case study picture of a dude who is lying to himself on so many levels coz he cant handle the reality as it is, I guess it's easier to live that way, keep believing in false equality, keep feeling sorry for yourself as women keep "oppressing" you and ofc, obstain from sex and all the drama those situation will obviously cause while ignoring data on a daily basis.
Human mind and its ability to convince itself into happiness via ignorance, a beautiful thing indeed.
Bubble boy in a psychological sense of the word
Carry on bro I just hope you wake up while you still have some life left to live.. Im gone
Ohh and fight the power coz all these hc feminists are out to get you... lol
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 16, 2014 12:17 AM |
|
|
JeremiahEmo said:
men also died in war for women
Yes, I remember a famous war that was waged by the fault of a woman. And see how the story goes.
Helena (who exceptionaly had had something to say about her mariage) decided to leave his husband Menelau, the king of Sparta and take another man (Paris). Using this as a pretext Agamenon, king of Athens and Menelau's brother mobilizes the greeks to take Troy.
Thousands of men died in the war for this woman. Thousands of men died because she was seen has the property of a man and that property had been stolen by another man.
This is how men where ready to die for women in the old days: "They stole my [money, cow, land, wife] and I want it back. They will dye for it." Of course, by that time everybody was more or less a slave of a small oligarchy but still some were more slaves then others.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 16, 2014 01:06 AM |
|
|
Oh jes lety's brign out Isran, the good old spoon fed one, rthart always wrkks right, ueah, h e brongs tyhe laughs in, you mupets.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted August 16, 2014 08:34 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 08:39, 16 Aug 2014.
|
Quote:
Zenofex, your choice of the word "firstly" can translate as "at first, instantly, instinctively" or it can translate as "priorly, overall, basically." Now, imagine a smoking hot woman, perfect body, gorgeous face, attractive smell... the whole nine yards. Now, imagine she started to talk about a subject you are very interested in, she's very insightful and knowledgeable or imagine she knows how to play an instrument and she started to play incredibly beautiful music to you. Your instant focus at first will most probably be to her sexuality and you will be distracted at least for a little while. As some time passes your focus will shift on her other traits. Of course, if we go to extremes and ask a question like "but what if she had looked like the monster of doctor Frankenstein, will those other traits mean anything" the answer will be that it will mean I wont be attracted to her, unless she turns out my soul mate in a fairy tail-esque way. However, this all quite beside the point, since a comic book is not something you create instinctively, it's not necessarily pornographic material or erotic work, and if you want me to elaborate in Freudian terminology (btw, his discovery is enormous but I think you'll agree he overdid it a little), it is a product of the superego, not the id. (Although, surely, the id is still there.) Now, since these comics are quite shallow works of fiction, at all aspects anyway, (the kind that consists of all body-builder men and all 90-60-90 women, at least), let's choose our example with something a little more potential content wise. Let's think of a novel, you can be a novelist who brings forth all his female characters with their sexuality, telling us about their physical beauty, page after page or you can be like Tolstoy whom women personally kept saying "how do you understand us so well, dear?" Well, that would actually require a little genius but you get my point.
The complaint about the comic books is a complaint about how overwhelmingly women are reduced into a sex object and how that reduction is strictly and purely based on a very limited body type. Another example has been mentioned before, there are many male lead actors who are not so perfect in terms of physical appearance but not as many female leads in the cinema.
What you are describing does not contradict what I said above. There is absolutely no problem to treat a woman as a person and as a female at the same time, nor there is a problem to appreciate her other qualities (i.e. apart from her sexually attractive features). "Firstly" in this case means "before anything else". You will first be attracted to her looks, i.e. to what is biologically coded in you as a search for the best possible specimen to mate with (that doesn't sound very romantic, I know). What else you can spot in a person who you don't know? Obviously her manners, behaviour, intelligence, etc. can attract you further, with time - to the point of falling in love - but doesn't change the fact that you have to notice her first. The nature does that for you. Freud aside (I mentioned him just to illustrate a point and you and Dagoth decided that I'm building a thesis around him, which was far from my intention), this is something which every single man can observe for himself every day by just taking a walk in the park or on the streets. You will see many women for who the thought "I certainly won't mind sleeping with her" will cross your mind, voluntarily or not, but you won't see even one (which you don't know) who will make you think "damn, she must be a wonderful person". At the end of the day, the urge to have sex with someone is not the same thing as the attraction to someone's person. A girl could be perfect for one night stands but totally unbearable for longer relationships, which will not really reduce her sexual attractiveness for that single "event" if you don't plan to make her your wife after that.
As far as the drawings are concerned, you have to take into account they are based on a largely imaginary prototype. The artists who draws a nearly naked, idealised woman who can easily scandalise other women (and some men) with her "sexual objectivity", draws something which he has never had real interaction with. He can't speak to his drawing - or with the prototype, he can't observe the changes in the behaviour (because they aren't any), he basically can't communicate in any way with his brain-child and whatever pseudo-communication he can start will also be a product of his imagination. Given that, what remains to be drawn? Many things, in theory, but if he decides to draw a woman with great tits, great ass, perfect face and so on, in very revealing clothing, that will be normal as hell because they come to mind very easily and can be expected to come to mind if the purpose is just some low-end picture which doesn't need to be incredibly realistic or relate to someone in particular. You can also say it like that - if he doesn't draw that picture, he will have it in his head. Which I suppose will be the more sweetheart thing from the scandalised women's perspective but that social reaction doesn't change the fact that the artist has imagined some super-hot woman in next to no clothing.
One note - I'm not a fan of such drawings because they are overexploited and because in my individual male opinion a woman with natural beauty doesn't need to look blatantly provocative to attract you. But that doesn't change anything, really.
Quote:
Oh, yes, somewhere between talking about how sex is super scary and about how there's an ego, superego and an id, Freud was like: "We totally wanna bone, though. All the time. We're like animals."
(Stop being pseudo-intellectuals. It's really cool that you heard about Freud, but I know for a fact, you haven't read a single word he's written in your life. Text books only detail his description of the ego, super ego and id and REALLY BAD text books detail about the edipal complex and that's it. Modern psychology doesn't care about anything else Freud said.)
I respectfully disagree, zenofex. I think humans have long surpassed their "eat, fight, snow" instincts. I know it's supercool to think of humans as beasts without morals or principles that never heard of Maslov's pyramid of needs, but that really isn't me and I can name at least a few other friends of mine that don't think the same way. Funnily enough, the only people who seem to think this way seem to be people that can't form meaningful relationships or maintain them with others and are sexually frustrated.
From this point of view, they can't think of anyone but themselves in their lives as actors. Everyone is an object (except them of course, they are the last man), an object of resistance, of desire, an object to aspire to etc etc etc. But that's okay, man. I think a large part of the western world consists of narcissists.
Do treat Freud as footnote please, he was not supposed to be the centre of the discussion or even to participate outside that sentence up there. And do allow me to know a few things about his concepts, would you kindly? 
I'm not sure why you brought Maslow's pyramid into this, it works against you. It doesn't stand on its top, nor its upper layers float in the air.
You seem to misunderstand me similarly to that libertarian jihadist fellow, mvass. Let me repeat - just because you treat a woman as a sexual object doesn't mean in the slightest that you can't also treat her as a person. There is a separation between the two for a reason. I suppose it's easier for you to think that I'm sticking to some patriarchal, male chauvinistic stereotypes (oh how much simpler is the black-and-white world) when I'm talking about these things but frankly I'm not. You can read my reply to artu. For you in particular, I'll say this: a man can adore all the personal qualities of a good-looking woman and still want to have sex with her. Captain Obvious, am I not? Obviously not actually, because you seem to think otherwise. You can also say it in reverse - a man can want to have a sex with a good-looking woman and still adore her personal qualities. The biggest surprise  here is that you will probably have an even bigger urge to have a sex with a good-looking woman if you adore her personal qualities. Now what if you have no idea about her personal qualities but your eyes and brain work as they do for most men and you notice someone like this:
(Replace it with someone else if this is not your type).
You will first think:
A) My, my, she's gorgeous!
B) Man, she must have a PhD in nuclear physics!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 16, 2014 09:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
a man can adore all the personal qualities of a good-looking woman and still want to have sex with her... You can also say it in reverse - a man can want to have a sex with a good-looking woman and still adore her personal qualities... you will probably have an even bigger urge to have a sex with a good-looking woman if you adore her personal qualities.
While this part is obviously true, it's different from what you said originally: that when a man sees a woman, that the first thing that crosses a man's mind when he sees a woman is whether he'd be willing to have sex with her. (In fact, this is how you said it: "When it comes to women, men think first with their dicks and then MAYBE with their brains if there is some energy left for the upper head. This is where the story begins and ends. Everything else is a byproduct." This is heavy sexism, but I'll address what you said more recently.) While there certainly are some men who are like this, to say that most men are like this is over-generalization. First, there are gays and asexuals, who aren't sexually interested in women at all. Second, there are people who don't have the desire to have sex with someone unless they know them well enough. For example, for such a guy, if a woman considered to be attractive by most men were to walk up to him and say, "Let's get a hotel room and have no-strings-attached sex", the guy would turn her down because he doesn't know her and therefore isn't interested in her. I personally am in this second category - I have to know at least something about what a girl is like before I can be sexually interested in her, and I'd have to know her and think well of her (for reasons unrelated to her looks) - i.e. be friends with her, at least - before I'd actually be willing to have sex with her. It's not a matter of morals, religion, or anything like that - I just don't have that desire. And I'm far from the only guy like that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted August 16, 2014 09:11 AM |
|
|
No, your interpretation is not what I originally said. How do you notice a woman who you don't know? What do you notice in her? These are the important parts, don't take my words arbitrarily out of context. What you just said is that if the flirting process is divided into steps - 1, 2, 3, etc., you will start from step 2. If you manage to explain me how you will do that, I might as well agree with you.
Obviously we are talking about heterosexual men only. I haven't met a woman who complains that asexuals, gays or other such deviations harass or offend her gender. Have you?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 16, 2014 10:03 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 10:36, 16 Aug 2014.
|
@Zeno
1- Actually, I haven't come to such a conclusion (that you built your thesis around Freud), in the Random Thoughts thread, I even said this to DG:
Quote:
Zeno vaguely mentioned Freud, I mentioned him back in my reply. It's not like we have paragraphs of name-dropping and no actual content.
2- There are situations that stage 2 (getting attracted to things about her personality) can become practically stage 1, if you are constantly in the same environment, like a class-mate or a co-worker. But as I said, I think all of that is quite beside the point when talking about conventions of a genre.
I must mention, I also think this "being seen as a sex object" thing is quite exaggerated and I think it is actually a subject where most women cant seem to be making up their own mind. They put an enormous effort to look sexier, they get really offended if a man calls them ugly or something similar even as a joke, some put on their make up even before going to the grocery store to buy milk. I understand they don't want to be reduced into a sex object and still be sexy but I can't figure out how they decide when the reduction starts and this "what if I just want to be beautiful for myself" rhetoric really doesn't make sense to me.
But back to sexism and conventions of comics, that is actually where I get the criticism. Let me ask you this way Zeno, you explain this with the sexual urges and dreams of the artist and of course, they are not irrelevant but let's compare European cinema and Hollywood.
I guess you wont disagree with me when I say, in Hollywood the female presence is much more focused on sexual aura and physical attraction (perfection based on some stereotypes) while in European cinema, we see a lot more "regular" women, both as lead and supporting characters. Now, are European men who makes those movies less sexual, no, it's just that, their tradition of film making involves less "sex sells" and they are not conditioned to present every female figure as a model.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 16, 2014 10:03 AM |
|
|
Zeno:
How do I notice a woman I don't know? It's difficult to describe, but it's also difficult to describe how I notice a man I don't know, and I don't think it's any different. I didn't say anything about the flirting process, so I don't know what you mean there.
Actually, I have heard about gay guys being sexist against women. See here.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 16, 2014 10:16 AM |
|
|
|
What he means by stages of flirting process is, even if a man may feel weird about going to bed with a complete stranger no matter how sexy she is, when it comes to women we don't know, the first traits we notice will be the sexual ones.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 17, 2014 08:12 PM |
|
|
artu said:
I can not go through 25 pages now, the draft argument had been refuted in so many aspects by mvass, dg, me, jj... I can not sincerely figure out which one of those you want me to link, it's basically so off track and so absurd at all levels, you still thinking it has some valid stance only shows the magnitude of your incapability to realize when your arguments had been already crushed. All we wrote is right in this thread, if even one more person who read this thread through, thinks I am lying, I welcome them to say so. I don't think you are aware, this is exactly what people are referring to when they mention how clueless and delusional you are.
The pay gap and glass ceiling argument had been refuted by the statistical fact (from US as you wish) that even if all conditions are the same (choice of job, education, length of work time etc) women make a 7 percent less, still. And this is a statistic that had been discussed in the Senate, it's not some internet site with a suspicious agenda.
What you presume lying is your own lack of capability to comprehend what you perceive as valid is not considered valid by a person with minimum logical standards. And what is blatant is your obsession and dislike of female presence and your inability to resist the urge making thread after thread about this. Even today, the first thing you mentioned in your new H7 thread was to get rid of the female priestess, and even your choice of words, to emphasize it as female priestess instead of just saying priestess shows how desperately fixated and mentally disordered you are about this. If you think any of your arguments are motivated by something remotely close to rationality and makes the slightest sense, I pity you.
artu said:
I wanted to stop replying to this thread as much as possible because apparently, one of our good poster asked me, as any good person is, to stop spreading bad vibes all over the forum. But I guess that's impossible so if you're planning to reply to me, please quote this along with your reply just so it won't feel like I'm breaking an oath.
Artu, uhmm.. I don't know the word I'm looking for. You and some others refuted my post one time, I found a hole in your logic, presented it and you decided to skip that post. I don't know why. Is it because you don't know how to reply to it or you know I'm right but are closing your ears hoping I won't come back to it just so you can further your feminist agenda?
The pay gap article didn't mention anything about the negotiation of salaries and some other factors I presented. It said "etc..". If you're trying to prove something, you list ALL the factors. It didn't list all the factors. This is true equality we are talking about here. Men did something to further their salary increase women may not have did.
Glass ceiling. As I said before and this has never been refuted, quit lying. It only mentioned statistics, it didn't mention why. There was no research about if it was because of choice.
The draft was refuted based on one's point of view, not facts. Just like your prison rape, it differ on opinions. There is no right or wrong answer when it comes to opinions but when it is facts, you know, you could never argue that men earned their rights to vote with blood (generally, yet again), women only need to protest. I've already given an exact quote from a history expert and I don't want to go through it again.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 17, 2014 08:43 PM |
|
|
Well, the problem with this post which pretends to say a lot but which, in fact only repeats the same BS is, it is only taken seriously by you. Only you believe your counter-arguments actually made sense and the loopholes you presume to find are actually not seen as loopholes by any other person. Either you know nothing about how logic works or all of the rest of us. Trust me, it's not the rest of us. If I wasnt exhausted by your lack of comphrension, I would once again refute all of your sentences quote by quote for the forth time but it will be in vain: You dont arrive at a conclusion by looking at the facts, you interpret the facts according to the conclusion you already have, just because you want to have. That's why 6 or 7 person finally screaming in your ear that your level of irrationality is delusional does not give you any clue about your so called counter-arguments are way off-track and logically twisted. It is not just that you are holding on to your refuted arguments, you are first, completely wrong about the very definition of things, you dont even know what privilage means and you still think it's a difference of two valid opinions. I am beginning to think your pathology includes mazochism because nobody can be this persistent and eager to ridicule themselves over and over again.
You cant understand what has been said and why it has been said, that is all there is to it.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 17, 2014 08:44 PM |
|
|
@Smithey
1. I'm delusional for thinking feminists would hunt me down if I tell me where I live? Jeez, Smithey, first of all, why would you ask where I live in the first place? Second, haven't you heard of Erin Pizzey? Adria Richards called a man's employer asking to fire him for telling jokes in a private conversation not in the office that doesn't even involve her. A woman researched where a man was working for prank calling her.
And don't even start with me on the Asian part. When a woman talks about how a man shouldn't talk about women's issues because he's not a woman, it's ok. When an Asian guy talks about his experiences, no, he's delusional. WTF?!!!
2. Your 40% to 2% whites vs minorities doesn't explain anything.
Like I said, equal opportunity does not necessarily mean equal results. I am all for equal opportunity. If you want equal results, go for communism. There is NO law that prevents minorities/women to succeed. Unless you have a research that clearly states discrimination on any group and it considers all the factors, there is NO discrimination in the fortune 500.
3. I'm not saying women won't get prosecuted, I'm saying women have it easier. I'm sorry, I'm not even gonna soften that phrase.
One example. I've already brought this up with citations and Steyn agreed with me. The law punishes anyone who is bigger when it comes to domestic violence. Say, if a woman hits you, you hit back, you're bigger, you're thrown to jail. Since men are generally bigger, it's discrimination towards men.
@Bloodsucker
Or.. you can look at it in a more realistic perspective.
Men fought for our country, which has women, children and other men in it. So, indirectly, men died for women.
@artu
Can you at least refute my argument about the pay gap?
oh wait, you can't. You're just gonna say "I and countless others have refuted it" again.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 17, 2014 08:54 PM |
|
|
No, I will once again tell you about the article that finds a 7 percent gap when ALL CONDITIONS are the same and you will again believe "what if all the men negotiated better" is a valid answer to that, not just sheer stupidity.
Do me a favor, take this statement of yours to any 12 year old child and ask them if there is something wrong with its logic:
Quote:
The law punishes anyone who is bigger when it comes to domestic violence. Say, if a woman hits you, you hit back, you're bigger, you're thrown to jail. Since men are generally bigger, it's discrimination towards men.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 17, 2014 09:14 PM |
|
|
artu.. negotiation of salary is part of how much salary you will get. Seriously, haven't you been promoted before?
Even in the interview process, you negotiate for your salary.
This is impossible. You don't want to address it other than calling it stupid.
Any intelligent, open-minded person can see through that. And yes, there has been intelligent people reading this thread. I've had a couple of posters PM me saying they agree with me.
What the heck, you're not gonna address it. You can't address it. I'm gonna leave this thread knowing that I win.
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted August 17, 2014 09:53 PM |
|
|
You haven't won anything Jerry. You have been shown time and time again by various different posters - because they have linked Governmental statistics that proves the in the States women get 7% less then men in the same jobs, doing the same hours. But because you will not accept these facts, you continue to claim that you have somehow debunked the worldwide accepted facts. Amazing feat for just one person, some little bigoted guy from Manila, who despite the overwhelming proof, facts and statistics that prove him wrong - continues to attempt to keep shouting that he alone is correct.
You do realize that people who do that are often referred to as 'insane'.
But then, lets be honest here. You think that all women over the centuries have lived within the richest 2% of the population (ergo no women peasants or villains or serfs and had such a wonderful lazy life), or that rape victims should deal with rape the way fantasy figures do in fantasy books. You know, because its not a real rape, its a fantasy rape.
You also are under the deluded MRA's belief that men earned the right to vote with blood. Oh the broken record over and over again. And again you have been shown time and time again within this thread alone the real reasons behind men and the vote. But just to add this to the mixture. Serfs, retainers went to war for whatever reason their Lord told them. And mostly it was to do with land and resources or religion. It had almost nothing to do with protecting their women and children at home, but everything to do with claiming land and acclaim. But also .... if you had read any history at all, you would know that women were trained to fight (as a last resort) but they were trained. So if the men died and the enemy advanced, the last thing they hit were the women putting up that last fight. But that is another piece of actual history you bigots cannot even discuss let alone accept.
Jerry all you have actually done with your presence here is prove to everyone who reads this thread and your other posts ... is that you are 'not right in the head'. Strong words indeed, but anyone who isn't a bona fide troll, could not possibly continue with the mammoth untruths and lies you continually adhere to, without learning something from the discussions held in this thread. Any right minded, well balanced individual, who started off so ignorant of the facts would have managed to understand and learn something, but not you. Even 5 year olds could work out that you are that crazy dude who talks to himself in the corner.
Really you should stop. You are so embarrassing. You have single-handedly humiliated yourself on this Forum.
We are sorry that you cannot process information properly. We are sorry that you cannot understand or accept truth and honesty. We are sorry that you appear to be allergic to any sort of history, historical fact and statistics and Governmental statistics. We feel sorry for you that the thought or image of women causes such hatred within you. We cannot help the fact that you are dyed in the wool, bigot and misogynist. Be under no illusion that we do not know exactly what you are Jerry.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted August 17, 2014 10:12 PM |
|
|
Oh just before I forget
JeremiahEmo said:
And yes, there has been intelligent people reading this thread. I've had a couple of posters PM me saying they agree with me.
Really, what Orzie pm'd you. Considering that Orzie's argument couldn't hold up to a gentle breeze. I wouldn't claim that as a victory or as an intelligent argument. Or are you going to say that posters such as Fred or Tsar pm'd you to say they agreed with you?? Seeing as they are the only other two people who haven't denounced you like the rest of us. You are claiming that they agree with your views about the non oppression of women over the centuries, they believe that men are being oppressed by women more than men ever oppressed women before and that women lie about rape etc. Are you claiming that they are misogynists such as yourself ??? Very interesting Jerry. Because I find it quite interesting that if there were others who agreed with you, that they haven't actually posted anything to back you up seems weird. Hmmm maybe because they don't want to show themselves up ???? Or maybe they wouldn't want their wives/girlfriends to find out what they said.
I mean unless you are fibbing (naughty boy) and are trying to insinuate that posters such as myself, or JJ, or Artu or Mvass secretly sent you HCM's to say that in reality we agree with you ??? I say prove it.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 04:58 AM |
|
|
didn't read most of this page, just meroe's last post.
if i hcm'd anybody over this, it's no longer in my inbox. i can't remember if i did or not, to tell the truth. but i already stated that there were points i agreed with on both sides(i'm just not going back to **** with this mess), so any messages sent are immaterial at this point. i don't see a reason to hide anything, OR to try and dig up "dirt" on anyone, for more of this bull**** mud-slinging. this is highschool ****(or media ****. i don't know which is worse).
people will be people, and they all have different views on things. which is why i don't really care for delving deep into anyone's personal views, because they ALWAYS have something in them i don't like(in general, not talking about anything specific from this thread). just like some of my views, are things people don't like, or wouldn't like.
that's all from my end. i'd like to see this thread dead and buried, to be honest. anything where people are only fighting and getting personal(for the most part, anyway), makes HC look like a haven for high-schoolers. and we all know how intelligent THAT scene is.
|
| |
|
|
