|
| 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» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted August 18, 2014 08:36 PM |
|
|
|
I dont have enough knowledge about the Edward Snowden case, but when it comes to national secrets, espionage of that, intelligence agencies etc, double agents leaking fake information is always possible. Is there any reason to consider it specifically probable in this case, I really dont know.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 08:43 PM |
|
|
exactly, artu. NONE of the public(read: the people NOT in control of information) really knows.
and that's exactly my point. why base your beliefs off of something you AREN'T directly involved in? something where you have NO access to the SOURCE of the information?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 08:51 PM |
|
|
A routine statistics about the average salary and its distribution between the genders and hacking into the CIA are not quite analogous.
There is a very obvious limit to things you can be directly involved in, that's why I'm telling you, if getting directly involved in, is your criteria on having reliable information, you wont have much to say about almost anything, other than of course, "we can never really know" which is like the motto of mysticism.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 09:01 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 21:06, 18 Aug 2014.
|
artu said:
A routine statistics about the average salary and its distribution between the genders and hacking into the CIA are not quite analogous.
There is a very obvious limit to things you can be directly involved in, that's why I'm telling you, if getting directly involved in, is your criteria on having reliable information, you wont have much to say about almost anything, other than of course, "we can never really know" which is like the motto of mysticism.
of course they're not analogous, artu. they're very different things, and they're covering very different levels of importance, for different reasons. but my point still stands: information that you weren't involved in, is information that cannot be trusted. just because a topic, lesson, or whatever seems harmless, doesn't mean it isn't. look at what's happening with the information BY COUNTRY, regarding the situation between russia and the ukraine. read the arguments in the thread, if you already haven't. sure, there could be some pre-existing, underlying racism/nationalism involved beforehand in some of the debaters in that thread, but also, take time to consider the information that their countries are giving them.
see how easy it is to sway people towards, or against something, using information? see how easy information can be used AGAINST YOU, to CONTROL YOU?
i could go on and on about this, artu. i still have the 4 paragraphs saved that i deleted before. if i have the time to get around to finishing it, would you be willing to read what i have to say on the issue? with an open mind?
not to say that i haven't covered what i mean to say so far; just that i was going much further in depth, before i stopped myself. i would really like if you could fully understand where i am coming from, artu. i'm not crazy by any means, i assure you.
to get back on topic: statistics. statistics regarding claims that back up, OR fight against, feminism and it's overall message; are no different(regarding information possibly meant to control) from all of the OTHER means of seperating people using differences within one another, via upbringing, exposure to the topic, etc. keep that in mind, people.
to answer the second paragraph, artu: no, i won't have much to say, if i doubt what information comes my way from "certified" sources. but that's what i'm driving at. what's the point in arguing, if no one really knows? you guys are getting really angry at each other, over what pretty much amounts to HEARSAY. and what's the point in that?
on a much more dangerous scale, that is what is happening between russia and the ukraine, "information"-wise.
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 09:09 PM |
|
Edited by meroe at 04:27, 19 Aug 2014.
|
Little bit of homework for Jerry, seeing as he obviously hasn't done any for quite some time regarding the subject and appears to have been listening to the 'ManFairy' again.
The Economist (04/17/12) - FULL-TIME working women in America earned only 82.2% of men's median weekly earnings last year, according to a new report by the Institute for Women's Policy Research, a think-tank in Washington, DC. Women earned less than men in almost all occupations. Only in the fields of "stock clerks and order fillers" and "bookkeeping, accounting and auditing clerks" did women make slightly more than their male counterparts. The gender wage gap (women's earnings as a percentage of men's) was most pronounced amongst CEOs and financial managers. Female chief executives earned only 69% as much as male bosses, resulting in $658 less in median weekly earnings.
Here is the link - http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/04/focus-3
But then I am guessing that The Economist is a well known, feminist run publication huh.
Anyway, continuing on :-
- In April 2013 median gross weekly earnings for full-time employees were £517, up 2.2 per cent from £506 in 2012;
- For men, full-time earnings were £556, up 1.8 per cent, compared with £459 for women, up 2.2 per cent;
- The gender pay gap (i.e. the difference between men’s and women’s earnings as a percentage of men’s earnings) based on median gross hourly earnings (excluding overtime) for full-time employees increased to 10.0 per cent from 9.5 per cent in 2012;
- The gender pay gap based on median gross hourly earnings (excluding overtime) for all employees (full-time and part-time)increased from 20.2 per cent to 19.7 per cent;
- The gender pay gap based on median gross hourly earnings (excluding overtime) for part-time employees widened slightly to -5.7 per cent compared to – 5.5 per cent in 2012;
- The gender pay gap based on mean hourly earnings for full-time employees increased to 15.7 per cent from 14.8 per cent in 2012;
- For part-time employees the gap based on mean hourly earnings decreased from 6.9 per cent to 5.2 per cent in 2012;
This is from The Equal Pay Portal, part of the Equal Opportunities Commission of the UK. This particular section is just regarding the gender pay gap, they also deal with equal pay issues regarding other discrimination too, age, race etc. So its not just about women.
They also talk about the differences between a pay gap and pay discrimination.
"In April 2013 the median full-time gender pay gap for hourly earnings was 10.00 per cent, an increase on the previous year. For the tax year ended 5 April 2013 the figure for median gross annual earnings for male full-time employees was £29,300, while for women the figure was £23,600.
Averages do not tell the full story: some women will experience no pay gap, others will experience much larger inequalities in earnings than the headline figures imply.
It’s also important to recognise that that a pay difference does not necessarily signify pay discrimination. A pay gap – whether at the macroeconomic level, or between the actual earnings of a man and a woman working for the same organisation – can have many causes, only one of which could be pay discrimination."
Their link:- http://www.equalpayportal.co.uk/
However, all this information that we keep providing Jerrybaby apparently means nothing, I mean Jerry knows more than Forbes and The Economist - because we all know what vile feminist publications they are. Doh.
And after that, a little more homework for Jerry. Voting and real life facts for Big Boys.
This can be some bedtime reading for you. Its been nicely set out for schoolkids most ages.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democracy/getting_vote.htm
It explains all these wonderful things about voting rights and who and what had them and why. Lovely little bits like - "A survey conducted in 1780 revealed that the electorate in England and Wales consisted of just 214,000 people - less than 3% of the total population of approximately 8 million".
And - "During the late 18th century and the early 19th century, pressure for parliamentary reform grew rapidly. Some of it came from men who already had a large say in how Britain was run: country gentlemen angry about the use of patronage at Westminster, or manufacturers and businessmen keen to win political influence to match their economic power. However, the issue of parliamentary reform reached a wider audience, particularly after the French Revolution. Influenced by works such as Thomas Paine's Rights of Man (1791-2), radical reformers demanded that all men be given the right to vote. Reform groups such as the Sheffield Corresponding Society (founded in December 1791) and the London Corresponding Society (founded in January 1791) were committed to universal 'manhood' (i.e. adult male) suffrage".
And - "The three parliamentary reform Acts introduced in 19th-century Britain (in 1832, 1867 and 1884 respectively) satisfied moderate reformers rather than radicals. The Prime Minister, Lord Grey, supported reform to 'prevent the necessity of revolution' and was responsible for the first (or 'Great') Reform Act of 1832. However, the Act gave the vote in towns only to men who occupied property with an annual value of £10, which excluded six adult males out of seven from the voting process".
Now these are not my words 'Oh Omnipotent Jeremiah of the Sexy Males Only Club', these are historical facts.
Whilst at the same time in the States.
1776: Although the Declaration of Independence has just been signed and the United States’ independent status has not yet been recognized by many countries, the right to vote begins in America as a legal privilege almost exclusively available to white, property-owning, Protestant men.
1788: With the ratification of the Constitution, all slaves are counted as 3/5’s of a single person on the national census.
1790: The Naturalization Act bars all persons of Asian descent from becoming naturalized. Only “free white” immigrants are recognized as eligible for naturalization.
1792: New Hampshire becomes the first state to eliminate its property requirements, thereby extending the right to vote to almost all white men.
1807: Women lose the right to vote in every state in the US for the next 113 years.
http://www.massvote.org/voterinfo/history-of-votingrights/#sthash.gD3nG2oV.dpuf
Its funny that in your little parallel universe you have devised this romantic notion of gorgeously handsome luscious muscled young men, marching off towards the horizon; off to sacrifice their beautiful young bodies and lives to save those worthless, lazy man-hating harridan feminists back home and thus pay for the right to vote with their spilt blood.
When in reality it was the patriarchy setting up a little system for their white, land owning brethren.
But lets blame the women.
____________
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
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 09:19 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:33, 18 Aug 2014.
|
@fredmuffin (rules are rules)
This is really simple. There is a pay gap between genders and we know that by statistics (and it is the only way to know since you wont be asking everyone personally). You either have a reasonable doubt about the authenticity of these statistics (in this case, I dont) or you consider them reliable as long as there is a reason presented not to.
If you have doubts, the thing to do is presenting your justifications for those doubts and your specific reasons. I've given hypothetical examples in a previous post. The "I dont trust anything at all" argument isnt considered a valid justification because than the ground you're standing on becomes mysticism. And that only blurs what people are objecting to, which in this case, is the pay gap.
The pay gap is the issue here, not dividing people into groups. People are bringing this to the table because they see a problem when they are not paid equally, it isnt some manipulation by the government, it is a social reality. To be aware of that social reality and to object to it is, not dividing instead of uniting, it's trying to unite for equal pay.
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 09:20 PM |
|
Edited by meroe at 21:22, 18 Aug 2014.
|
fred79 said:
to answer the second paragraph, artu: no, i won't have much to say, if i doubt what information comes my way from "certified" sources. but that's what i'm driving at. what's the point in arguing, if no one really knows? you guys are getting really angry at each other, over what pretty much amounts to HEARSAY. and what's the point in that?
Whoa no no no. Lets just get this right here now. What is hearsay is what JEmo is constantly spewing in this thread. He repeats himself over and over like a broken record, yet cannot provide any proof of what he is claiming. He is getting his warped information from sites that condone "Beat a violent b***h month", or running women over in their cars. Have you read any of these Men's Rights sites? I have, and it stopped me sleeping for three days. Honestly, I was beginning to have nightmares. It has shocked me to the core that men actually believe that filth and misogynistic hatred. It has certainly managed to cloud my opinions on men that is for certain. Some of these sites recommend decriminalizing rape, because apparently all women are liars.
Dammit hit the wrong button and submitted before I was ready.
These sites also have discussions around lowering the age of consent to about 12!!!!! These are not rational men or rational publications.
And he is getting his so-called proof from them. So, no we are absolutely right to correct him. Especially has he had turned up at HC and just poisoned threads with his misogyny.
____________
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 11:14 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 23:18, 18 Aug 2014.
|
artu said:
@fredmuffin (rules are rules)
This is really simple. There is a pay gap between genders and we know that by statistics (and it is the only way to know since you wont be asking everyone personally). You either have a reasonable doubt about the authenticity of these statistics (in this case, I dont) or you consider them reliable as long as there is a reason presented not to.
If you have doubts, the thing to do is presenting your justifications for those doubts and your specific reasons. I've given hypothetical examples in a previous post. The "I dont trust anything at all" argument isnt considered a valid justification because than the ground you're standing on becomes mysticism. And that only blurs what people are objecting to, which in this case, is the pay gap.
i'll explain myself. remember when i said, that i keep peeling away at the layers of something wrong, until i find the core problem? this(and any) situation is no different. you want me to quantify my beliefs; i already have. i've seen statistics all over the internet, regarding anything from race differences regarding crimes, to sex differences regarding pay. i've read statistics that claim that black people are the problem with the world. i've read statistics that claim that muslims are. i compare those same statistics with what i could find about the crusades. what does it all tell me?
something different, with each one. one bunch of statistics will directly disregard or invalidate another set, even with the same subject under scrutiny. new statistics will invalidate old statistics, because "there's always something new to learn" via these statistics. what i see, are patterns emerging from all that garbage.
and those patterns tell me that, the information is subject to change; based on where the information comes from, and when it comes. for instance, whenever a conflict happens, there is scant little information claiming this, that, or the other. but suddenly, every news channel is flooded with information. speculation, too, is in abundance.
now, keep in mind, that this ALL correlates to what i am talking about: take what a news station will tell you. remember when i mentioned the new situation in the states with police shooting a black kid? one of the things the news media kept reiterating, was that the town where the incident happened, 70% of the residents were black, but nearly ALL of the cops in that town were white.
now, why would they KEEP mentioning this? to incite racial hatred. to KEEP people watching. because conflict sells. and what sells MORE than ordinary conflict? RACIAL conflict, especially between cops and civilians. "hey, we have a black president, and you're telling me this **** is STILL going on?" that's exactly the reaction they want. keep you emotionally involved; keep you watching, giving them ratings. nobody knows what happened at the time, because police and the only witness(the guy's friend) have drastically differing stories. but what does the news media do? keep egging it on. now that all the hatred is flowing, they can "step in", and act as a mediator. "we care what happens. we'll keep you informed. you can TRUST us." and that's the message the typical dullard receives/believes. i know, because i ask people after i see this kind of ****, what they think.
now, what does this all have to do with a pay gap statistic? simple. it's potentially the same as a news station. it gives you "information", in order to sway you one way or the other. i don't know ANY females that get paid less than a man. and until i SEE that, then i'll call the "factual statistic" bunk.
not to say that this kind of thing DOESN'T happen. what i am questioning, is the DEGREE in which it happens. the SCOPE. like i said, the more at stake(and believe it or not, statistics like these can make a big difference with people. obviously), the less i believe what i'm told.
statistics, like the news, could very well be sensationalizing whatever it covers; merely to get you on whatever side the group who did the statistics WANTS you on. of course, the tactic won't work on everybody, but it will, on the masses. especially, when they can become emotionally involved. race, sex, religion, you name it, it's all up for grabs, and it can, and will, be used against you. as long as you let it.
artu said:
The pay gap is the issue here, not dividing people into groups. People are bringing this to the table because they see a problem when they are not paid equally, it isnt some manipulation by the government, it is a social reality. To be aware of that social reality and to object to it is, not dividing instead of uniting, it's trying to unite for equal pay.
the pay gap is the divider, artu. the pay gap is the divider. look at what it's doing to a forum for modding heroes. dividing people right up, isn't it? and all because someone said something AGAINST those very "statistics".
does anyone here control pay for a female? speak up if you do. i sure don't.
no, the impact it has, is by making us argue with one another. the impact it has, is the same ineffectual amount that voting does in politics, i suspect. we are their target audience. once they divide out the targets, we aim at each other. see how that works? ask yourself: has anything actually been ACCOMPLISHED, with this "information"?
the only thing i see, is a whole lot of arguing because of it. people taking sides. dividing up.
sure, it could be part of a grander plan to "make people more aware of the injustices". it sure could be. but based on the results in this very thread, i don't buy it.
what i see, is more propaganda. if that offends anyone, take a second to think about just WHY it offends you. because you already know that i am absolutely FOR equal rights. maybe it's not me. maybe, it's "statistics", or anything else that tells you to get angry at me for not agreeing with what you've been "taught".
btw, artu: like i told kip. any dude calling me "fredmuffin" is gay. 
@ meroe: i have yet to read your post; i've been busy with this long reply to artu's. i'll need a little time.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 18, 2014 11:49 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:56, 18 Aug 2014.
|
Quote:
; i already have. i've seen statistics all over the internet, regarding anything from race differences regarding crimes, to sex differences regarding pay. i've read statistics that claim that black people are the problem with the world. i've read statistics that claim that muslims are. i compare those same statistics with what i could find about the crusades. what does it all tell me?
something different, with each one. one bunch of statistics will directly disregard or invalidate another set, even with the same subject under scrutiny. new statistics will invalidate old statistics, because "there's always something new to learn" via these statistics. what i see, are patterns emerging from all that garbage.
Statistics don't tell people what the problem is, they are not normative tools to tell you what is good or bad, they give you the average facts, interpretation of those facts is another matter.
Quote:
i don't know ANY females that get paid less than a man. and until i SEE that, then i'll call the "factual statistic" bunk.
So your criteria is your (anyone's) inevitably limited social circles and personal experience. Since, you don't go out much and you don't have a job at the moment, according to your own words, how even relatively inclusionary can that be? Not much.
Quote:
the pay gap is the divider, artu. the pay gap is the divider. look at what it's doing to a forum for modding heroes. dividing people right up, isn't it? and all because someone said something AGAINST those very "statistics".
does anyone here control pay for a female? speak up if you do. i sure don't.
no, the impact it has, is by making us argue with one another. the impact it has, is the same ineffectual amount that voting does in politics, i suspect. we are their target audience. once they divide out the targets, we aim at each other. see how that works? ask yourself: has anything actually been ACCOMPLISHED, with this "information"?
the only thing i see, is a whole lot of arguing because of it. people taking sides. dividing up.
The actual difference of pay, the gap based on gender is the real issue, not some people arguing over it.
1- We (or the people) are not shooting each other over it. It's not like this will lead into an uprising or a civil war.
2- Actually everyone except Jemo and you, agrees there is a pay gap based on gender. We have no logical reason to suspect the statistics are part of some evil plan to divide people into camps. People who are rational quickly agree on the authenticity part even if they later disagree on what the solution should be or is a solution needed. So, the statistics themselves DON'T cause any debate, they just give us the facts to base our opinions on.
3- By that logic, if there is, say, slavery in a country, people shouldn't bring it up because it will create diversion and arguments (arguments are not monsters btw, I PREFER them to VW spam.). Oh, if we don't bring it up, we'll be united to change the world and the revolution will come. Because, these debates and social issues being discussed is what's preventing that from happening. It is not the issue that is the problem, it is the debate around it. Let's not talk about none of our problems and they'll be gone.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 19, 2014 12:26 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 00:26, 19 Aug 2014.
|
God, reading this thread - strictly as part of my moderating responsibilities - is tedious. How can there be 30 pages of this nonsense?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted August 19, 2014 12:43 AM |
|
|
Well Cor, seeing as we are dealing with some seriously erroneous views posted here by the OP, the rest of us have found it important not to have those views splattered all over the place and have all shown the OP the reality. But judging by the OP's mindset, we could be for another 30 years ..... I mean pages.
Don't ya just love your job.
____________
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
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 19, 2014 04:05 AM |
|
|
If I was the mod I'd just let it all go, and then once every 3 weeks distribute an arbitrary penalty to Jollyjoker or Angelito in order to keep the suborum on its toes, even if everything is calm.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 19, 2014 04:31 AM |
|
|
|
Angelito is a mod now, old man. He cant get any penalties.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted August 19, 2014 12:25 PM |
|
|
Geesh Jerimiah, looks like your standpoints were of much more interest than I thought. Good to see you've been able to sparkle a bit of insight into other members thoughts on something I've tried, and failed, to do for so long.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 19, 2014 01:04 PM |
|
|
^ Teheehe.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 19, 2014 02:53 PM |
|
|
Corribus said:
God, reading this thread - strictly as part of my moderating responsibilities - is tedious. How can there be 30 pages of this nonsense?
try getting asked to go back through all the nonsense, just to reiterate what you believe. and still get argued with. 
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 19, 2014 03:25 PM |
|
|
meroe said:
Whoa no no no. Lets just get this right here now. What is hearsay is what JEmo is constantly spewing in this thread. He repeats himself over and over like a broken record, yet cannot provide any proof of what he is claiming. He is getting his warped information from sites that condone "Beat a violent b***h month", or running women over in their cars. Have you read any of these Men's Rights sites? I have, and it stopped me sleeping for three days. Honestly, I was beginning to have nightmares. It has shocked me to the core that men actually believe that filth and misogynistic hatred. It has certainly managed to cloud my opinions on men that is for certain. Some of these sites recommend decriminalizing rape, because apparently all women are liars.
Dammit hit the wrong button and submitted before I was ready.
These sites also have discussions around lowering the age of consent to about 12!!!!! These are not rational men or rational publications.
And he is getting his so-called proof from them. So, no we are absolutely right to correct him. Especially has he had turned up at HC and just poisoned threads with his misogyny.
what jmo is spouting isn't hearsay, it's his opinion. and no, i don't visit those sites, any more than i visit feminist sites. i don't bother, when both sides spout stuff that contradict with what i've seen with my own eyes.
i'm not up to this today, to be honest. and after reading artu's response to my last post, i can see there is really no point trying to reach anyone.
goddamnit, i don't like my time being wasted. but i guess i asked for it, by trying to give others a different perspective to use. you would think i would have learned my lesson by now. after all of my ranting and raving, and all of my more calm discussions, only 2 people in my life actually see what i'm getting at. in 35 mothersnowing years. 
why in the hell should i bother caring about any of humanity's ongoing struggles, at this point? what's my motivation here, to give a rat's ass about anyone else's problems? they don't listen to reason, period. they'd rather snowing argue, like a bunch of dimwits.
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted August 19, 2014 11:59 PM |
|
|
What JEmo is spouting is gender related untruths and subversion. He appears to be purposefully attempting to corrupt the truth. And people like you would let him.
To save you a job, lets look at his original quotes (the reason for opening this thread, and numerous others).
1. Draft and voting. Again he was wrong and we all explained the historical facts regarding men's suffrage and right to vote, having no correlation to 'the draft'.
2. Women not owning property. His original quote for this was an outright mess and I really don't know why he included it. But it was his ham-fisted way of trying to subvert historical proof that women have been oppressed.
3. Fathers/Husbands taking care of daughters/wives. Again, the patriarchy and social codes (laws made by men for men) at the time have shown this view to be a little on the naive and innocent side. I, myself drew comparisons to how women are treated in the Middle East, Africa and Asia for example and how European women were treated pretty much the same until women's suffrage. But apparently women have been spoilt by men. *deep breath*
4. Quiet and Submissive. *rolls eyes* JEmo literally explained that he prefers that women be quiet and submissive because he doesn't like having to be firm and aggressive. In other words, women should shut up and only let the men talk.
5. Women discouraged from getting 'manly' jobs. (Correction should have been 'any' job). Again ham-fisted and astounding claims that because Boudicca or Joan of Arc made a stand, women were not oppressed from working or providing for themselves. Insinuating that in fact women are inherently lazy and do not want to work.
Now apart from language/interpretation difficulties, JEmo's statements were quite frankly insulting, sexist and very very misguided. He, however started the thread. When people replied to him, he refused to listen to anyone's opinions, repeating ad nauseaum that women have not been oppressed and in fact have had it easier than men.
And when people have taken time out of their day to provide this thread and OP with bona fide statistic's - and not just one source, or no, various legal and Government sources. He still refuses to acknowledge the information. He believes he knows more than scientists and leaders of industries or help groups, combined. No sane person would continue to act and talk such rubbish continuously unless they:- 1) have an agenda and wish to troll this forum for s**ts and giggles, or 2) they need psychological help. Now JEmo is a misogynist, that much is clear and simple. And there are many more like him, but it debate has actually gone beyond that now. We are not arguing that JEmo is a misogynist, we are arguing his consistent misinterpretation of fact. He is doing it on purpose.
Myself, Artu, JJ, Smithey, Steyn, Adrius, Mvass et al, have all provided JEmo with truthful and historically acknowedged proofs. He won't accept them and when asked to prove what he is saying he has resorted to comparing real life incidents with the way FANTASY characters from books and tv shows act. JEmo has not provided one shred of evidence for any of his claims. Not one. In his little world of JEmo, he thinks just by continuously repeating himself - that this is proof.
So in fact, yes it is hearsay because he is getting his 'so-called' information from dubious sources without researching anything. That is what hearsay is!!!
Definition - 1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge;
2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor =
a malicious hearsay.
The only links that JEmo has provided are links to MRA sites or youtube nutters.
And you think he has valid points?? What valid points?
The only truthful and valid point he has brought up is the recent discrimination shown towards fathers in the family courts. And we all agreed on it!
You are the only one ranting and raving. Fred if you cannot be bothered to read the posts, perhaps you should not post. You appear to have missed out a majority of the argument.
And I doubt you have even bothered to read the statistics and links I provided on the gender pay gap. Because you know for certain that the women you know are being paid the same as their male colleagues. I guess they have all showed you their pay slips and taxes etc. And it has been mentioned that it is not all jobs that have a gender pay gap. Governmental ones would have a hard time in discriminating like that - although that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Gender pay divide does not and has never claimed to cover every single damn job out there. Some industries are worse than others. Gosh it doesn't take Einstein to figure that one out.
So I really do not know what you are trying to 'reach' people on. What, that we need to take onboard JEmo's misogynist viewpoints? What that only you and JEmo know 'the truth' - That women really want to rule the world and abolish men? Or what, that us women should shut up and put up, not rock the boat .... why because some men don't like being challenged? That we should all just be a good little housewife and do as we are told. Or that its perfectly okay for some kid to start posting all this drivel on the HC boards because he would rather see some hunky guy hero character than a female and because of that, its all a feminist plot to take over a computer game and then the world and subjugate all men.
Ugh, save me from all this BS.
____________
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 20, 2014 08:39 AM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 08:47, 20 Aug 2014.
|
i'm the one ranting and raving?
ok.
i knew i was going to regret reading your post. i wonder... i really WONDER... just WHY i don't read most of the argumentative posts in the osm.
it SURE IS PERPLEXING WHY I DON'T.
note: the only time i was ranting and raving in this thread, was when a feminist told me that because i had a penis, that i was somehow responsible for women's plight. that, and this post right here. because i am really snowing angry. and, this anger is a righteous anger. you guys tend to bring that out in me.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted August 21, 2014 08:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
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.
Sure it can, but what you are describing is more like gradually falling in love with someone rather than being sexually attracted to a woman just because she looks great. The latter becomes obvious for the vast majority of the men in a few seconds at most while the former can take a long time and the sexual attractiveness is still highly likely to play a big part. In the end, these are different things.
Quote:
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.
Right, but that's not the same as imagining the (or *a*) girl of your dreams (her shape at least) and drawing her. Movies are not supposed to appeal to your sexuality only - or at all - except when they are deliberately made to do so, i.e. porn, erotic films, etc. The sexual urge is something very basic so if the movie focuses only on it, then it is also very basic. The directors usually try to achieve something more than that, although not all of them succeed. The drawing of a perfect-looking woman doesn't aim at anything else but at the drawing of a perfect-looking woman. As far as the artist is concerned at least.
|
| |
|
|
