Did you guys notice the "What It's Like to Be A Woman On the Internet" article by Chloe Condon? It's long, self-glorifying, and full of the same old feminist nonsense. But what really struck me was one of the responses she got. It is one of the most hilariously soy-boy responses I have ever seen:
Wyatt Edward Gates responded:
Quote"I'm sorry you have to deal with men. That's a tax on your mental health and life energy you shouldn't have to pay. No woman should. I hope in the future men are better equipped to behave in mature and considerate ways. I'll try to do as you said and call out bullshit from men wherever I see it."
This guy also writes his own posts and online articles:
Quote"How should men interact with women in public at night? In brief: stay far away, keep your mouth shut, and don't stare."
Now, normally I would think that this is just another internet crazy person, but reminds me of several of the guys I noticed on RPG.net before they kicked me out. Bailywulf started a thread that was filled with angst and self-hatred. WTF is going on? Why would ANYONE embrace an ideology that treats you like shit, and teaches you to feel like shit? Did any of you encounter such guys in real life?
Sorry for the delay in approving this one; it slipped past me.
Quote from: Trond;1071490Now, normally I would think that this is just another internet crazy person, but reminds me of several of the guys I noticed on RPG.net before they kicked me out. Bailywulf started a thread that was filled with angst and self-hatred. WTF is going on? Why would ANYONE embrace an ideology that treats you like shit, and teaches you to feel like shit? Did any of you encounter such guys in real life?
Men love to work for women's approval. There's a few blokes out there who don't care, but most guys will happily throw other men under the bus to prove that they are worthy of that approval.
Combine that with the progressive stance on men as horribly patriarchal rapey bastards, and you get a toxic brew of self-loathing.
AFAICT anyway.
Quote from: Trond;1071490Did you guys notice the "What It's Like to Be A Woman On the Internet" article by Chloe Condon? It's long, self-glorifying, and full of the same old feminist nonsense. But what really struck me was one of the responses she got. It is one of the most hilariously soy-boy responses I have ever seen:
Wyatt Edward Gates responded:
This guy also writes his own posts and online articles:
Now, normally I would think that this is just another internet crazy person, but reminds me of several of the guys I noticed on RPG.net before they kicked me out. Bailywulf started a thread that was filled with angst and self-hatred. WTF is going on? Why would ANYONE embrace an ideology that treats you like shit, and teaches you to feel like shit? Did any of you encounter such guys in real life?
Greetings!
LOL! Hey Trond! Wow. So pathetic, you know?
Beta Cuck Pussy Boy says: "How should men interact with women in public at night? In brief; stay far away, keep your mouth shut, and don't stare."
So says a feminized, Jabba the Hut slug. Women want men that are good-looking, dressed well, successful, and charming. Women *want* sex with men like this. They love being chatted up, and devoured by men like this.
In fact, if these pathetic Jabba the Hut's understood the non-verbal cues and body language that women routinely operate with--and respond to in men--they wouldn't spout such nonsense. If you are a man with the above attributes, women love being approached. They often approach *you* and do all kinds of things to get your attention, focused on them. They stare at you, giggle, talk to you, focus their attention on you, they put their bodies and sex on *display* for you, and a host of other "tells" to keep other women away, and get you to fuck them, and show attention to them.
Dress Well
Be Confident
Have some money
Be Charming--be skilled at flirting and innuendo, being able to get a woman laugh and wonder what it would be like to fuck you.
Be Intelligent--don't just drone on about some pet subject that you love; have the knoweldge and awareness to talk about all kinds of things, with reasonable skill and knowledge.
Be In Shape--Don't be Jabba the Hut, or a beanpole. Be as muscular and physically strong looking as possible. More so is always better than less, but it is not necessary to be a body-builder.
Men that can do these things, have no problems attracting women, anywhere, at all times, day or night. Men that can't or refuse to do these things...well, they end up playing video games, circle jerking themselves into a pathetic and sad life as a celibate troglodyte.
Our SJW feminized society makes things awful, for all men, in general. However, these traits are constantly desired by women, and are what motivates them, regardless of whatever else is going on in society or "online." Many men can't do these things--or refuse to, for whatever reason. These men are on an endless, downward spiral into misery.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
LOL. Woke wankers are the creepiest.
SNL actually nailed it.
[video=youtube;kTMow_7H47Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTMow_7H47Q[/youtube]
Quote"How should men interact with women in public at night? In brief; stay far away, keep your mouth shut, and don't stare."
Considering how fucked up most American women are, that's pretty good advice.
Nobody really wants to be ground zero staring agape at the freakass fatties.
"Buy American, but don't date American" is my frequent advice to single friends.
I remember that thread, and it is pretty sad. I'm sorry if it makes a woman uncomfortable to walk on the same street as a man, but that isn't my fault or my problem.
The thing that I found the most hypocritical is replace the word men, with African-American and that thread would have gone in a completely different direction.
I definitely try to avoid walking behind a lone woman on the street at night if possible.
I guess walking on streets is something most of you Americans don't have to worry about. :D
edit: Also if I see some other guy who appears to be deliberately walking close behind a lone woman at night, I get pretty uncomfortable. If it's in a secluded area like a park I keep an eye on them. I know the guy won't do anything with other people around - probably wouldn't do anything anyway, but I've seen some men who seem to get a thrill out of making an attractive woman feel uncomfortable/worried. Obviously those men are not going to take advice from Internet soyboys like the writer in the OP.
Walking? ...but what do I do with my car?
Well on the plus side, these weak guy are less likely to procreate and pass on their weak genes. In some respect it's evolution in practice. Except we get the dubious pleasure of listening to those who mewl and *beg* to ask permission for their own existence from those who have no capacity to understand or care. We'll get to watch them wither away as sure as other species die due to lack of desire of self-definition.
Or to quote the great Marcus Aurelius "A man must stand erect, not be kept erect by others."
I read this guys blog... talk about a pretentious entitled twat? Jesus.
I have no stake in identity politics other than the moment where my masculinity is under attack. Those that want to redefine me as some pitiable creature to be victimized for my own being, well they're in for a surprise. I'll leave lesser men, yes *lesser* men, who in the name of self-loathing take shame in the acts of others as if those acts were their own, to die on the sword of their own ignorant beliefs.
Those "men" have no virtues they fight for. Ever receding backwards and apologizing for every aspect and shred of biological reality and moral necessity that has defined who we are by *action* not just words. What virtues do they fight for that they don't, in turn, tear from themselves and be rendered emasculated? Yeah... having an self-loathing man tell me what it means to be a man from a position of apathetic weakness for lack of understanding is grotesque.
What would our world be if most men were like him? Someone who finds some kind of victory in choosing "pink" as a color over what he pretends is "masculine" - vs. what real masculine people concern themselves with: getting shit done that needs to be done, and doing so correctly. He's the little twat wondering why he doesnt' feel good, without striving to understand or striving to achieve something - which begets of the realization of what it takes to have what we have communally. He mistakes his sensitivity as a virtue outside of putting those sensitivities to the test and sorting out what actually works in practice.
That endurance of putting ones beliefs to the test and honestly and honorably accepting the outcomes is what it means to be a man. Guys like this, they sit by the sidelines criticizing and worse - victimizing themselves and projecting it on others, without getting into the arena and proving it.
TL/DR GTFO with that weak-ass shit.
How timely.
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/278837/birth-of-the-cool-guy
LOL how timely indeed.
"So what defines the Cool Guy? It might be that Cool Guys are, above all, useless. "
They stand for nothing. They accomplish nothing that matters. They believe in nothing that actually matters. They dare to solve no problems that affects others over their own self-promotion as victim-cheeleaders.
Quote from: tenbones;1072247LOL how timely indeed.
"So what defines the Cool Guy? It might be that Cool Guys are, above all, useless. "
They stand for nothing. They accomplish nothing that matters. They believe in nothing that actually matters. They dare to solve no problems that affects others over their own self-promotion as victim-cheeleaders.
The punchline is that for the most part, feminsts can't stand Cool Guys either.
Self-loathing pretty much makes that impossible for "male feminists" too.
Hence the natural evolution-at-work notion (which the article you linked also predicts). We'll have to put up with this nonsense for a bit... it'll die out metaphorically if not literally.
Be fair, being "woke" has given pathetic, whiny losers some means to earn social capital. Even if it's ultimately worthless.
Quote from: S'mon;1072207I definitely try to avoid walking behind a lone woman on the street at night if possible.
I guess walking on streets is something most of you Americans don't have to worry about. :D
edit: Also if I see some other guy who appears to be deliberately walking close behind a lone woman at night, I get pretty uncomfortable. If it's in a secluded area like a park I keep an eye on them. I know the guy won't do anything with other people around - probably wouldn't do anything anyway, but I've seen some men who seem to get a thrill out of making an attractive woman feel uncomfortable/worried. Obviously those men are not going to take advice from Internet soyboys like the writer in the OP.
I'm not sure if this is the whole topic, but I agree with this. I think it's just basic decency that people should help make each other feel safe walking the streets. It might be a feminist statement, but it's also just a branch of normal decency.
I'm a part of my city, and I take responsibility for trying to make it better - which includes feeling safe when walking the streets.
It fucking sucks, but I do know that women have good reason not to feel safer if a strange man talks to them or walks close to them when on the streets at night. It isn't just supposedly man-hating feminists who think that. Even conservative women will often be nervous walking around alone at night, and are concerned about being harassed or stalked. That fucking sucks, though, and I would like it to change. Obviously, the world isn't going to change to some perfectly safe utopia, but I can do some things to make the situation better where I live, and maybe stand up to some assholes who are threatening.
That goes also for "What It's Like to Be A Woman On the Internet". From my few times of being harassed on the Internet, I thought it was horrendous, and I know that it happens to women much more regularly than men. It's not like the Internet is suddenly going to become a polite society, but I feel like I should do my part in my corners of it - to stand up for basic decency and to call out shit like harassment and doxxing.
Quote from: jhkim;1072257That goes also for "What It's Like to Be A Woman On the Internet". From my few times of being harassed on the Internet, I thought it was horrendous, and I know that it happens to women much more regularly than men. It's not like the Internet is suddenly going to become a polite society, but I feel like I should do my part in my corners of it - to stand up for basic decency and to call out shit like harassment and doxxing.
That's not totally true. Recent polls (this one for example (http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/07/11/experiencing-online-harassment/)) have shown that men tend to experience more online harassment overall than women. When broken down into types of online harassment women receive more stalking and sexual harassment but men suffer more from offensive name calling, intentional embarrassment, physical threats and sustained harassment.
Quote from: jhkim;1072257It fucking sucks, but I do know that women have good reason not to feel safer if a strange man talks to them or walks close to them when on the streets at night. It isn't just supposedly man-hating feminists who think that. Even conservative women will often be nervous walking around alone at night, and are concerned about being harassed or stalked. That fucking sucks, though, and I would like it to change. Obviously, the world isn't going to change to some perfectly safe utopia, but I can do some things to make the situation better where I live, and maybe stand up to some assholes who are threatening.
But that's not what is being pumped non-stop from the main-stream media. *NO* one is saying anything you said is not true. No one. But the media and the alt-media online are directly attacking the very biological underpinnings of what masculinity is *as* being toxic. With the assumption that it's always true that men are going to attack women, and bully people with the passive-aggressive push for consequences for being merely male. It's become a demand that you prove your non-masculinity less you be branded as "toxically masculine".
Quote from: jhkim;1072257That goes also for "What It's Like to Be A Woman On the Internet". From my few times of being harassed on the Internet, I thought it was horrendous, and I know that it happens to women much more regularly than men. It's not like the Internet is suddenly going to become a polite society, but I feel like I should do my part in my corners of it - to stand up for basic decency and to call out shit like harassment and doxxing.
Does it happen to women more than men that they get doxxed? I have *never* seen stats for that. I have seen polls saying men are abused more online than women.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/06/higher-proportion-of-men-than-women-report-online-abuse-in-survey
I have seen anecdotally - people get doxxed more by people from the left (including people on the left that doxx themselves for the virtue-signal). Not sure I buy your premise. Nor do I think that standing up for "basic decency" means anything outside of some subjective parameters that when scrutinized by people on the left, should you be so brave as to illuminate those parameters - I can *guarantee* you, that a progressive will happily you attack you for not including
where X=pet-outrage trigger.
There is nothing sufficient for them. Whether you think you're part of "them" is irrelevant because at that point you're simply revealing where your limit on the Overton Window is marked. Trust me - they'll go further. This is how "liberals" like Dave Rubin, a Democrat gay jew, is now being called an Alt-right Nazi/white-supremacist, transphobe.
Same is true of people talking about masculinity and femininity. It'll be non-stop deconstruction for the purposes of devolving and othering everyone into an intersectional box - so you can be placed in their new Hierarchy.
I guess my view is that it takes strong good men to protect women from bad men, and men should try to be strong and good. Women can be good but very few can be as strong as an average man. And most men are good, at least in our society, but there are also bad men. So it takes strong good men to protect against them.
Socjus/cultmarx does not make men good, but it does make them weak, and so less able to protect against the bad men.
Quote from: S'mon;1072277I guess my view is that it takes strong good men to protect women from bad men, and men should try to be strong and good. Women can be good but very few can be as strong as an average man. And most men are good, at least in our society, but there are also bad men. So it takes strong good men to protect against them.
Socjus/cultmarx does not make men good, but it does make them weak, and so less able to protect against the bad men.
As the saying goes:
Hard Times create Strong Men
Strong men create Good Times
Good Times create Weak Men
Weak Men create Hard Times
Quote from: rgalex;1072267That's not totally true. Recent polls (this one for example (http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/07/11/experiencing-online-harassment/)) have shown that men tend to experience more online harassment overall than women. When broken down into types of online harassment women receive more stalking and sexual harassment but men suffer more from offensive name calling, intentional embarrassment, physical threats and sustained harassment.
Sure, but women
feel more afraid. Therefore menfolk have to
do something. Because women are incapable to doing anything for themselves.
Quote from: S'mon;1072277I guess my view is that it takes strong good men to protect women from bad men, and men should try to be strong and good. Women can be good but very few can be as strong as an average man. And most men are good, at least in our society, but there are also bad men. So it takes strong good men to protect against them.
Socjus/cultmarx does not make men good, but it does make them weak, and so less able to protect against the bad men.
I understand the idea. I feel quite chivalrous towards women. But chivalry can and has been used for nefarious purposes, to create the threat narratives that have embroiled communities lately.
Quote from: rgalex;1072267That's not totally true. Recent polls (this one for example (http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/07/11/experiencing-online-harassment/)) have shown that men tend to experience more online harassment overall than women. When broken down into types of online harassment women receive more stalking and sexual harassment but men suffer more from offensive name calling, intentional embarrassment, physical threats and sustained harassment.
Thanks for the link. I was speaking mostly from anecdotal experience before. That could be wrong, though I think categorizing and comparing different harassment in polls is difficult. Even ignoring sensitivity and feelings hurt, there is a range of what is more serious and less serious harassment. The stats there are dominated by harassment like name-calling, which I consider less serious compared to others.
Quote from: tenbones;1072276Does it happen to women more than men that they get doxxed? I have *never* seen stats for that. I have seen polls saying men are abused more online than women.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/06/higher-proportion-of-men-than-women-report-online-abuse-in-survey
I have seen anecdotally - people get doxxed more by people from the left (including people on the left that doxx themselves for the virtue-signal). Not sure I buy your premise. Nor do I think that standing up for "basic decency" means anything outside of some subjective parameters that when scrutinized by people on the left, should you be so brave as to illuminate those parameters - I can *guarantee* you, that a progressive will happily you attack you for not including where X=pet-outrage trigger.
Yeah, I'm not claiming that harassment is purely a conservative thing. I do have the impression that women receive serious harassment more often than men among people I know, but that is hard to quantify - and I could be mistaken.
In the bigger picture, though, the main thing is that harassment sucks - it happens to both men and women, liberals and conservatives, and we should hold against it.
Some appropriate satire:
Striking Blow Against Toxic Masculinity, Man Graciously Allows Wife To Shovel Driveway (https://babylonbee.com/news/striking-blow-against-toxic-masculinity-man-graciously-allows-wife-to-shovel-driveway)
Quote from: jhkim;1072282In the bigger picture, though, the main thing is that harassment sucks - it happens to both men and women, liberals and conservatives, and we should hold against it.
"I think murder is bad; we should really try to mitigate people being murdered."
Like, what? Who is advocated harassment except sociopaths? This reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where Kramer doesn't want to wear the ribbon EVEN THOUGH he's participating in the march. Somehow if you don't go out of your way to say bad stuff is bad, you're tacitly approving of said behavior.
You can solve online harassment quite easily: turn off the fucking computer. Done. In real life, women should start slapping dudes who got out of line like in the old days, or start packing heat and use it when necessary. When you create an environment that benefits those who want to engage in bad behavior by disarming the innocent, you end up with a lot more victims.
Quote from: Brad;1072289"I think murder is bad; we should really try to mitigate people being murdered."
For the record, I would like to say that I'm completely against murder.
Quote from: Brad;1072289In real life, women should start slapping dudes who got out of line like in the old days, or start packing heat and use it when necessary.
(Emphasis mine.) That's battery.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1072291For the record, I would like to say that I'm completely against murder.
The longer I'm online, the less against it I am.
Quote from: S'mon;1072277I guess my view is that it takes strong good men to protect women from bad men, and men should try to be strong and good.
No. That's white knight bullshit. Equality killed chivalry.
Now women get to protect themselves as they are equal to men. The privileges of equality come with the responsibilities of equality.
Unless a human has a relationship to me, their welfare is not my concern as I respect their much touted equality.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1072325No. That's white knight bullshit. Equality killed chivalry.
Now women get to protect themselves as they are equal to men. The privileges of equality come with the responsibilities of equality.
Unless a human has a relationship to me, their welfare is not my concern as I respect their much touted equality.
Women aren't equal IRL, whatever the official ideology says. That's why men (and women) are evolutionarily hardcoded to care more about women than men, and why nominally equal processes such as criminal and family law favour women in practice.
Denying it is just as much in denial of reality as Feminism is.
AFAICT 'white knighting' is generally taken to mean the attitude that women are both Equal AND Better at the same time - an Orwellian/1984-ish ability to hold two mutually contradictory thoughts at the same time - and act accordingly.
Edit: Also I don't hold with collective guilt/responsibility unless people choose to be part of the Collective. If a woman is one of the 20%-25% who says "I'm a Feminist" I can see a good case for letting her go look after herself. Most women never made that choice.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1072191Men love to work for women's approval. There's a few blokes out there who don't care, but most guys will happily throw other men under the bus to prove that they are worthy of that approval.
So much for bros before hoes.
Quote from: SHARK;1072193Dress Well
Be Confident
Have some money
Be Charming--be skilled at flirting and innuendo, being able to get a woman laugh and wonder what it would be like to fuck you.
Be Intelligent--don't just drone on about some pet subject that you love; have the knoweldge and awareness to talk about all kinds of things, with reasonable skill and knowledge.
Be In Shape--Don't be Jabba the Hut, or a beanpole. Be as muscular and physically strong looking as possible. More so is always better than less, but it is not necessary to be a body-builder.
And honestly IMHE the only thing you really need on that list is the confidence, which many men
and women still sadly assume means being an arrogant asshole. What's worse is it's easy to be confident when you're a sociopath unburdened by self-doubt.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1072202LOL. Woke wankers are the creepiest.
SNL actually nailed it.
[video=youtube;kTMow_7H47Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTMow_7H47Q[/youtube]
Wow. I'm surprised they got away with that.
Quote from: Brad;1072289Who is advocated harassment except sociopaths? This reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where Kramer doesn't want to wear the ribbon EVEN THOUGH he's participating in the march. Somehow if you don't go out of your way to say bad stuff is bad, you're tacitly approving of said behavior.
It's all about being able to dictate what you
must say and do, which coincidentally is also something sociopaths advocate.
Quote from: S'mon;1072328Edit: Also I don't hold with collective guilt/responsibility unless people choose to be part of the Collective. If a woman is one of the 20%-25% who says "I'm a Feminist" I can see a good case for letting her go look after herself. Most women never made that choice.
Personally, I don't have the time or inclination to sort them out. The world has changed, and we're all still trying to catch up. Reliable birth control and modern hygenie (indoor plumbing, tampons & pads, etc) have radically changed the scope of what women can and can't do. Unless there's a zombie apocalypse type scenario, chivalry is going to continue to become more and more irrelevant, and butt up against how men and women interact in the modern world.
That too is reality.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072308(Emphasis mine.) That's battery.
You must be a lawyer...and autistic.
I'm open to any kind of discussion. Any. I'm open to anyone trying to convince me of something I think might be not what I think is true.
Not gonna lie - trying to convince me to dislike myself over the fact I'm male is going to be a tall rhetorical mountain to climb. I'd like to think if I were female the same would be true. My daughter is the closest example of that. She is in all ways that matters a mini-version of me, an adult, and she makes no apologies about reality either and doesn't identify as a victim or as oppressed.
I'll use her as my baseline.
Quote from: S'mon;1072328If a woman is one of the 20%-25% who says "I'm a Feminist" I can see a good case for letting her go look after herself.
Where do I pick up the super secret decoder ring which casts Detect Feminist at-will?
If other 75% of women don't like what the 25% has wrought, they should step up.
Meanwhile, men should step down (from the chivalry gig) and enjoy the fireworks.
Quote from: S'mon;1072328Most women never made that choice.
Tough shit. I didn't choose to be hated for my genetics either, but that's the world we live in.
It's crap sandwiches for everybody!
Quote from: Brad;1072367You must be a lawyer...and autistic.
No, to either one. But if my point went over your head, that's OK.
(Although, on the first one, give me another year to finish up my J.D.)
Quote from: Spinachcat;1072380Tough shit. I didn't choose to be hated for my genetics either, but that's the world we live in.
It's crap sandwiches for everybody!
Despite what you might think from Britain's dystopian ruling class, this (race & sex hatred) seems much more a parts-of-US thing. I pretty much never experience it in daily life (at least since my American ex wife got herself a new boyfriend, and eased off with the hating) :D so I don't see why I should let it affect my on-street behaviour.
I'm in California, perhaps the epicenter of identity politics stupidity, so its the bread and butter of the media. Glad to here the UK hasn't drowned in that particular Kool Aid...yet.
Ever heard the phrase "When France sneezes, Europe catches a cold"? That's California and the USA.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1072390I'm in California, perhaps the epicenter of identity politics stupidity
Oooohhhh, watch out!! Somebody from Portland or Seattle is going to check your privilege!
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072381No, to either one. But if my point went over your head, that's OK.
(Although, on the first one, give me another year to finish up my J.D.)
Looks like I was right on both accounts, or at least 2/3. So Aspergers then?
Quote from: Brad;1072396Looks like I was right on both accounts, or at least 2/3. So Aspergers then?
Wrong again, on both counts still. Man you're bad at this... and math. You probably should never advise anyone on anything to do with health, legality, or living in society.
Look, if it makes you feel better, I apologize for pointing out that your advice was an idiotic civil infraction and tort action that would be worse for the people you were trying to advise and that it was indicative a failure of imagination in how to solve a social problem, instead creating more.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1072390I'm in California, perhaps the epicenter of identity politics stupidity, so its the bread and butter of the media. Glad to here the UK hasn't drowned in that particular Kool Aid...yet.
Ever heard the phrase "When France sneezes, Europe catches a cold"? That's California and the USA.
When Cali sneezes, the rest of the USA wants it to die of whatever fucked up communicable disease it got.
Key word: communicable.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072426Wrong again, on both counts still. Man you're bad at this... and math. You probably should never advise anyone on anything to do with health, legality, or living in society.
Look, if it makes you feel better, I apologize for pointing out that your advice was an idiotic civil infraction and tort action that would be worse for the people you were trying to advise and that it was indicative a failure of imagination in how to solve a social problem, instead creating more.
Whatever makes you feel better about yourself, Chief. Might want to get your sense of humor checked out.
Quote from: Brad;1072430Whatever makes you feel better about yourself, Chief. Might want to get your sense of humor checked out.
The lack of self-awareness in that statement is amazing. :D
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072431The lack of self-awareness in that statement is amazing. :D
And we come full circle. The autist has revealed his hand.
Did you type that amazing retort while puffing on a pipe, ensuring your top hat was firmly in place? All you're missing is a "tut tut" in there.
Quote from: Brad;1072434And we come full circle. The autist has revealed his hand.
Did you type that amazing retort while puffing on a pipe, ensuring your top hat was firmly in place? All you're missing is a "tut tut" in there.
Never enjoyed pipe smoke, top hats look terrible on a man my height (for I have not the dashing looks of Lincoln), but I'll admit tut-tutting crossed my mind.
So you get one of three on that one, Snowflake. Congratulations on your first even partially correct statement.
Quote from: Brad;1072367You must be a lawyer...and autistic.
Nope, TW's just holding women to the same standard of behavior as men. If there's ever any question, switch the genders around:
QuoteYou can solve online harassment quite easily: turn off the fucking computer. Done. In real life, men should start slapping chicks who got out of line like in the old days,
Is it still ok? Then neither was the original statement.
Quote from: Joey2k;1072443Nope, TW's just holding women to the same standard of behavior as men. If there's ever any question, switch the genders around:
Is it still ok? Then neither was the original statement.
I guess I shouldn't expect anyone on the Internet to have a sense of humor anymore, but God forbid if I don't make the attempt...and what's the difference? People thought it was okay back then, so are you just starting yet another argument using the whole "we're much more enlightened" spiel? Maybe they WERE right, and smacking around insolent broads was actually a good idea.
To jump back to the original topic for a moment,
Quote from: Trond;1071490Now, normally I would think that this is just another internet crazy person, but reminds me of several of the guys I noticed on RPG.net before they kicked me out. Bailywulf started a thread that was filled with angst and self-hatred. WTF is going on? Why would ANYONE embrace an ideology that treats you like shit, and teaches you to feel like shit? Did any of you encounter such guys in real life?
I'm not sure what the concrete position statement is here. What's the supposed dividing line of what is a self-hating man? In particular, I identify as a feminist - and I'm not sure how I tell if I would be considered part of this group.
Part of the issue of supposed angst and self-hatred seems to be about collective responsibility. That is, if some Muslims engage in terrorism, do moderate Muslims have some level of responsibility for that? If some liberals engage in antifa violence and suppression of free speech, do other liberals have some level of responsibility? More broadly, if some men engage in harassment of women, do other men have some level of responsibility? On some level, obviously the responsibility is squarely with whoever commits the act. But I think people do have some responsibility to make their own community better. Although being born male is an accident of biology, there is a broad male culture and male communities that have their own norms.
In general, communities are more concerned about things done to them than in policing their own - which is understandable, but also a flaw. We should see the bad being done by our community as a real issue. Sexual harassment is predominantly committed by men, so it should be seen as more of an issue for men.
(As a side-note, Trond uses the term "soy-boy" which bugs me. As a Korean-American, soy sauce and tofu have always been a regular part of my diet. It seems like a stupid thing to label on.)
Quote from: jhkim;1072448(As a side-note, Trond uses the term "soy-boy" which bugs me. As a Korean-American, soy sauce and tofu have always been a regular part of my diet. It seems like a stupid thing to label on.)
I think it's a play on the idea that they drink soymilk, and it's not about the fermented stuff that people from soy-consuming places actually eat.
Quote from: jhkim;1072448To jump back to the original topic for a moment,
I'm not sure what the concrete position statement is here. What's the supposed dividing line of what is a self-hating man? In particular, I identify as a feminist - and I'm not sure how I tell if I would be considered part of this group.
The issue is "feminism", in the current wave, has yet to actually define what the issues are that haven't been long debunked for *decades*. Modern feminism seems to be trying to de-feminize itself and, at the same time, attempt to take on the very cartoony masculine traits they project on men, as if that somehow closes this biological emergent gap they wish to pretend does not exist.
Women generally prefer things that men do not. That generality is measurable, at scale, along with a LOT of datapoints that account for these perceived "inequities" that certainly are not policy in this day and age. There might be some outliers - but those outliers need to be defined for discussion's sake.
Those among the modern feminists that propagate this idea of "Toxic Masculinity" are conflating their cartoonish stereotype of Masculinity to be the root-cause of their perceived problem and crusade for solving these problems that are already largely solved, in order to justify their own existence. Worse they seem to be projecting this those very problems they sought to cure on all men, without circumspection or nuance.
Quote from: jhkim;1072448Part of the issue of supposed angst and self-hatred seems to be about collective responsibility. That is, if some Muslims engage in terrorism, do moderate Muslims have some level of responsibility for that? If some liberals engage in antifa violence and suppression of free speech, do other liberals have some level of responsibility? More broadly, if some men engage in harassment of women, do other men have some level of responsibility? On some level, obviously the responsibility is squarely with whoever commits the act. But I think people do have some responsibility to make their own community better. Although being born male is an accident of biology, there is a broad male culture and male communities that have their own norms.
The short answer is: yes.
Long answer - Metaphorically if your house has one room filled with a fire, it IS your job, if you value that house, to put that fire out. The means which you go by that is the Devil in the Details. When Christianity was faced with this issue - they had a centuries-long war over, a conflict whose echoes are felt to this da. Ultimately they've largely got tired of the bloodshed, and let go of prescriptive punishment for wrong-think. Now that mode of puritanical thought has been picked up by radical fundamentalists of Islam and leftists of post-modernity in the west.
The funny thing about your quote above is that you're acknowledging the biological impulse that IS fundamental to being male without fully acknowledging the *ramifications* of building your cultural and personal identification around such an abstraction as "gender-as-culture" (rather than as an emergent quality) that denies fundamental reality of biology itself. Masculinity *cannot* be suppressed without gigantic upheavals in society that have measurably *BROUGHT US HERE* because of the expression of those qualities across culture. The issue is the lack of nuance on the Left that conflates the biological reality that being *male* ISN'T a culture. But being male *does* express behaviors that form functional patterns that produce measurable results in culture.
Femininity does the same thing but with different results because they *are* different. There is no monolithic form of Masculinity that is unto itself a discrete culture. People that push identity politics - you know... Leftists, look at these biological differences which they generally deny as the root, and conflate them to be cultural. Despite all the evidence to the contrary.
This is *precisely* why feminists have a hard time grappling with the Islam and Gender identity problems - because they conflate Gender to be a social construct like Islam - rather than a biologically emergent phenomenon. Which of course leads to the natural confusion on "what to do" - because the reality is that history has already shown us time and again: when you wish to create social constructs that are in competition for describing reality, you're in for bloody conflict.
Why? Because people are too ego-bound to let go of their beliefs and feeling outraged for being wrong. They would rather die or kill others to prove themselves right *at all costs*. This is the mindset of two-dimensional dogmatic fundamentalism. I don't even need to call it a discrete religion - but all fundamentalist religious social constructs carry this DNA. It's fueled by cognitive dissonance at the excuse of reason and individual thought in order to justify "the cause". And there always has to be a cause for the collective construct - less you be shown to be 1) a blaphemer or 2) an apostate. The end result is the same.
More reasonable people see this line of thinking for the extinction trap that it is.
Quote from: jhkim;1072448In general, communities are more concerned about things done to them than in policing their own - which is understandable, but also a flaw. We should see the bad being done by our community as a real issue. Sexual harassment is predominantly committed by men, so it should be seen as more of an issue for men.
Wrong. You should be looking at "the bad" and asking yourself "to what degree?". And "is it actually a real problem - or an aberrant incident that requires actual action and again - TO WHAT DEGREE? Masculinity is not a culture. Which of course to feminists is a ridiculously easy target that actually works like structural bigotry. Because it LITERALLY is "that which is not us".
Is it actually a problem? Relative to "what"? Deaths by lightning bolts? Deaths by automobile mechanical failure? Violence to dog-track greyhounds? What is this quantifiable outrage that "feminists" feel towards those they've othered hypocritcially by action and volition against what they claim they're against? Seems like a bad way to solve problems that are largely solved within reasonable limits.
If it's not sufficient - then the question REALLY is : What would be sufficient to make "feminists" not identify with identity politics as a collective group. Yeah... there's real issue. It's an existential one.
Quote from: jhkim;1072448(As a side-note, Trond uses the term "soy-boy" which bugs me. As a Korean-American, soy sauce and tofu have always been a regular part of my diet. It seems like a stupid thing to label on.)
Yeah it's more for the sterotype male-feminist that chugs Soy. Though I have seen it applied to tofu-eaters. But not really the Asian variety.
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1072451I think it's a play on the idea that they drink soymilk, and it's not about the fermented stuff that people from soy-consuming places actually eat.
Indeed. From what I have read, Soy reduces testosterone severely. Hence, men that drink Soy have their testosterone levels reduced severely, rapidly making such men more effeminate. The testosterone is reduced; estrogen levels increase; the men become lethargic, less competitive, less aggressive. Such men are steadily losing muscle mass, and increasingly prone to gaining weight as fat. Energy levels and overall vigor tends to plummet, as estrogen levels increase, the men become more lethargic, and continue to become fatter.
Interesting. More men are overweight and obese. More men are increasingly feminine, feminized, and lacking any kind of masculine strength and vigor. Fat, weak, lazy, feminine, pathetic, passive, and conflict-avoidant.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK;1072460Indeed. From what I have read, Soy reduces testosterone severely. Hence, men that drink Soy have their testosterone levels reduced severely, rapidly making such men more effeminate. The testosterone is reduced; estrogen levels increase; the men become lethargic, less competitive, less aggressive. Such men are steadily losing muscle mass, and increasingly prone to gaining weight as fat. Energy levels and overall vigor tends to plummet, as estrogen levels increase, the men become more lethargic, and continue to become fatter.
Interesting. More men are overweight and obese. More men are increasingly feminine, feminized, and lacking any kind of masculine strength and vigor. Fat, weak, lazy, feminine, pathetic, passive, and conflict-avoidant.
This is pseudo-scientific bullshit. In particular, South Korea and Japan have the highest rates of soy consumption in the world (ref) (https://www.otsuka.co.jp/en/nutraceutical/about/soylution/encyclopedia/consumption.html) - but also among the lowest rates of obesity. Meanwhile, the U.S. has much lower soy consumption but has one of the highest rates of obesity in the world. If you want to find pathetic fat losers, I'd look first at burger-chomping beer-guzzling sports fans.
What this also ignores is that soy is regularly used by lots of bodybuilders to help beef up. In a page about soy on bodybuilding.com, they conclude:
QuoteThe study found no difference between male animals who ate soy protein that contained the plant estrogens and those who ate soy with the estrogens removed, leading researchers to conclude the isoflavones (genistein and daidzein) in soy protein have no apparent negative effects on the reproductive system.[8]
"Our data supports an interpretation that soybean estrogens have tissue specificity in part because of their mixed estrogen agonist and antagonist properties," the scientists concluded.
From this and other data, it seems the phytoestrogens in soy don't, in fact, have systemic estrogenic effects, such as body fat increases.
QuoteMore research will need to be done, but if the studies presented here are anything to go by, soy protein could be an excellent anabolic aid, either used independently or in concert with whey protein.
This report is not intended to denounce whey protein or hail soy as the newest miracle product, but, rather, to present another side to the whey-versus-soy story, with the research to help people make more informed choices.
Source: https://www.bodybuilding.com/content/soy-friend-or-foe.html
I also like how you link being feminine or feminized with being weak, lazy, and pathetic.
Side note: I get that this is labelling soy milk in particular more than other soy products, but Asian countries also have high soy milk consumption - partly due to lactose intolerance being more common among East Asians.
QuoteEight of the top 12 soy drink consuming countries are Asian with Hong Kong residents consuming the most at 17 litres per year each, according to TetraPak data.
Source: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2011/04/20/Asia-continues-to-dominate-soy-milk-consumption
Short form - soy is a fine part of a diet for bodybuilders or anyone else. I personally dislike using soy as a substitute for other ingredients as tends to be common in the U.S., and prefer to eat tofu as its own unique ingredient - but the nutrition value is pretty similar.
jhkim, do you think rhetoric is validly used only when it is backed up by dialectic? Why do you often seek to treat rhetoric as a dialectic discussion?
I see this all the time - and the specific positions argued really don't matter. But I wonder if its because people don't understand/recognize rhetoric when it's spoken to them, or some other reason.
Quote from: EOTB;1072470jhkim, do you think rhetoric is validly used only when it is backed up by dialectic? Why do you often seek to treat rhetoric as a dialectic discussion?
I see this all the time - and the specific positions argued really don't matter. But I wonder if its because people don't understand/recognize rhetoric when it's spoken to them, or some other reason.
Are you talking the modern use of rhetoric or the classical use of the word rhetoric? Because from your use of dialectic, I would assume the classical... which means that the dialectic discussion is most certainly a part of the ethos of the rhetoric (in terms of pathos, ethos, and logos). Aristotle certainly established the link between the two quite firmly.
I ask only to know how to read your question to jhkim.
Just a point of interest, actually soy does not reduce testosterone, rather it has estrogen mimicking compounds (known as phytoestrogens or isoflavones). Also I would note that the benefits and drawbacks of soy are highly contestable...
https://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/a19539170/soys-negative-effects/
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072473Are you talking the modern use of rhetoric or the classical use of the word rhetoric? Because from your use of dialectic, I would assume the classical... which means that the dialectic discussion is most certainly a part of the ethos of the rhetoric (in terms of pathos, ethos, and logos). Aristotle certainly established the link between the two quite firmly.
I ask only to know how to read your question to jhkim.
When I put a 3L on retainer I'll worry about his comprehension of my question to another party.
Quote from: EOTB;1072476When I put a 3L on retainer I'll worry about his comprehension of my question to another party.
I don't care if you're worried about some 3L's comprehension. I asked for my comprehension.
Quote from: jhkim;1072465This is pseudo-scientific bullshit. In particular, South Korea and Japan have the highest rates of soy consumption in the world (ref) (https://www.otsuka.co.jp/en/nutraceutical/about/soylution/encyclopedia/consumption.html) - but also among the lowest rates of obesity. Meanwhile, the U.S. has much lower soy consumption but has one of the highest rates of obesity in the world. If you want to find pathetic fat losers, I'd look first at burger-chomping beer-guzzling sports fans.
What this also ignores is that soy is regularly used by lots of bodybuilders to help beef up. In a page about soy on bodybuilding.com, they conclude:
Source: https://www.bodybuilding.com/content/soy-friend-or-foe.html
I also like how you link being feminine or feminized with being weak, lazy, and pathetic.
Side note: I get that this is labelling soy milk in particular more than other soy products, but Asian countries also have high soy milk consumption - partly due to lactose intolerance being more common among East Asians.
Source: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2011/04/20/Asia-continues-to-dominate-soy-milk-consumption
Short form - soy is a fine part of a diet for bodybuilders or anyone else. I personally dislike using soy as a substitute for other ingredients as tends to be common in the U.S., and prefer to eat tofu as its own unique ingredient - but the nutrition value is pretty similar.
Greetings!
Great, Jhkim. *shrugs* I don't consume Soy in any form, except for Soy Sauce on my rice when enjoying Asian food. If the idea that Soy milk or whatever decreases testosterone, and increases estrogen--and consequently tends to increase men being fat, lethargic, and feminized is all really "psuedo-science bullshit"--my question would be WHY? Why single out or target Soy as some kind of evil product? Why not pick, I don't know, carrots, or potatoes?
As I said, I have no particular ideological axe to grind about the product, one way or the other. Randomly, I have seen several video productions done by uber-buffed strong men that rant extensively against Soy--while promoting a host of other, general food items. Such men by the way don't seem to be shills for a particular food item--they say eat and drink this list of two dozen things, but stay away from hamburgers, fat, greasy junkfood, soda, and especially SOY. So, from what I've seen, they advocate strong, healthy diets, and avoiding junk food, and so on. But they consistently single out Soy as a terrible product that will make a man fat, lazy, lethargic, and feminine.
What is the reason for such focused hate for Soy? It isn't just *one* uber health guy, I've seen a good number of uber-health guys constantly hammer Soy.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: EOTB;1072470jhkim, do you think rhetoric is validly used only when it is backed up by dialectic? Why do you often seek to treat rhetoric as a dialectic discussion?
I see this all the time - and the specific positions argued really don't matter. But I wonder if its because people don't understand/recognize rhetoric when it's spoken to them, or some other reason.
From my view - all rhetoric is one-sided, but not all rhetoric is equal. Some rhetoric is close to reality, while some is objectively way off base, and deserves to be debunked. Trying to debunk rhetoric is always going to have problems.
More concretely, I understand that some questions are rhetorical. Like probably Trond's initial question of "why are some men self-hating" isn't really looking for an answer, but rather just a way to express his anti-feminist position and get commiserating posts from other anti-feminists about how soyboys suck. That would be what some would call "virtue signaling." But if I don't think I agree - how do I answer it?
I don't expect anyone here to stop identifying as feminist or anti-feminist based on conversation here, but we may be able to agree or change our minds on smaller, more concrete points.
Quote from: tenbones;1072458The funny thing about your quote above - is you're acknowledging the biological impulse that IS fundamental to being male without fully acknowledging the *ramifications* building your cultural and personal identification around an abstraction that *denies* that very fundamental reality. Masculinity *cannot* be suppressed without gigantic upheavals in society that have measurably *BROUGHT US HERE*. The issue is the lack of nuance on the Left that conflates the biological reality that being *male* ISN'T a culture. But being male *does* express behaviors that form functional patterns that produce measurable results.
Femininity does the same thing with different results because they're different. There is no monolithic form of Masculinity that is unto itself a discrete culture. People that push identity politics - you know... lefties, look at these biological differences which they generally deny and conflate them to be cultural. Despite all the evidence to the contrary.
This is *precisely* why feminists have a hard time grappling with the Islam and Gender identity problems - because they conflate Gender to be a social construct like Islam - rather than a biologically emergent phenomenon. Which of course leads to the natural confusion on "what to do" - because the REALITY is that history has already down us time and again: when you wish to create social constructs that defy the status-quo you're in for bloody conflict.
There is both masculine biology and multiple
different masculine cultures. For example, someone might say "Well, men are inherently more violent - that's why we have our rape and murder rates." But crime rates vary widely in different countries and different cultures. For example, Japan has nearly one-tenth the murder rate of the United States. That doesn't mean that Japan is purely better - they also have a much larger suicide rate, for example. They're repressed workaholics who are messed up in the head (IMO).
But clearly culture and social environment
can make a big difference in negative behaviors like sexual harassment, rape, and murder. Culture can change things for the better.
Wanting to reduce the rate of sexual harassment and other crimes isn't denying male biology - it's recognizing that people aren't just animals who are slaves to their hormones. They have cultural and religious values that change their behavior. We can see through history that the status quo has changed. People are still people and problems remain, but some things have unquestionably gotten a lot better.
Quote from: jhkim;1072480There is both masculine biology and multiple different masculine cultures. For example, someone might say "Well, men are inherently more violent - that's why we have our rape and murder rates." But crime rates vary widely in different countries and different cultures. For example, Japan has nearly one-tenth the murder rate of the United States.
Violent crime rates vary. Men committing 10 times the violent crime of women is close to a constant, though. The absolute rates vary far more than the ratios.
First, thanks for answering.
Quote from: jhkim;1072480while some is objectively way off base, and deserves to be debunked.
I'm going to ask another question, and while it's not rhetorical, it is more pointed and personal; I don't demand any answers. But I am curious.
Do you feel the rhetoric of the other point of view is close(r) to reality? I've never observed you on sites of other political persuasions, other than the facebook screenshot posted here, so I'm wondering if your debunking is equal-opportunity, or selectively used to introduce questions to common talking points of one side only.
Perhaps the other side is graded on the curve because you feel their ends are more legitimate?
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072477Last edited by Tanin Wulf; Today at 07:12 PM.
When you graduate, don't ever relay your ego weak point to your opposition. Because they'll care enough to use it.
Quote from: EOTB;1072487When you graduate, don't ever relay your ego weak point to your opposition. Because they'll care enough to use it.
I thank you for your advice. Believe me, I spent enough years in the Pentagon managing ACAT I systems to know how to handle people shrewd enough to pick up on that. (Of course I also found the best way to do that was to absolutely telegraph my ego weakness to them; it made them overconfident.) I survived the Obama officials after all.
And I edited that post because I made an accidentally inaccurate statement. I don't want to lie to you.
Quote from: EOTB;1072482I'm going to ask another question, and while it's not rhetorical, it is more pointed and personal; I don't demand any answers. But I am curious.
Do you feel the rhetoric of the other point of view is close(r) to reality? I've never observed you on sites of other political persuasions, other than the facebook screenshot posted here, so I'm wondering if your debunking is equal-opportunity, or selectively used to introduce questions to common talking points of one side only.
Perhaps the other side is graded on the curve because you feel their ends are more legitimate?
Well, everyone has their biases, and I'm sure that plays into how I respond. As for other forums - This is by far the most blunt (or sometimes rude) forum that I'm on. I like that - it appeals to a side of me. But my Facebook is almost entirely people I know in my real life, so I'm circumspect. In part that means being more moderate - most of my FB friends are liberal, but I do have some conservative friends and family. I still try to push for what I think is true, but I'm definitely slower to get to some points instead of being quick on the draw.
I do have regular arguments with liberal friends. Free speech, nuclear power, vaccines, and Israel/Palestine are common points of conflict - but there are others. I had an argument a few weeks ago with someone a friend who thought global warming was going to make the whole human race go extinct within a century, based on what a Buddhist monk said.
Fair answer. Appreciate it.
Quote from: jhkim;1072282Thanks for the link. I was speaking mostly from anecdotal experience before. That could be wrong, though I think categorizing and comparing different harassment in polls is difficult. Even ignoring sensitivity and feelings hurt, there is a range of what is more serious and less serious harassment. The stats there are dominated by harassment like name-calling, which I consider less serious compared to others.
It is the usual assumption that women have it worse in almost every way. It is not always true of course. EVERYONE gets shit on the internet. Check these forums for instance, the way the guys talk to each other here is often worse than some of the "harassment" some women complain about elsewhere.
Quote from: jhkim;1072448To jump back to the original topic for a moment,
I'm not sure what the concrete position statement is here. What's the supposed dividing line of what is a self-hating man? In particular, I identify as a feminist - and I'm not sure how I tell if I would be considered part of this group.
Part of the issue of supposed angst and self-hatred seems to be about collective responsibility. That is, if some Muslims engage in terrorism, do moderate Muslims have some level of responsibility for that? If some liberals engage in antifa violence and suppression of free speech, do other liberals have some level of responsibility? More broadly, if some men engage in harassment of women, do other men have some level of responsibility? On some level, obviously the responsibility is squarely with whoever commits the act. But I think people do have some responsibility to make their own community better. Although being born male is an accident of biology, there is a broad male culture and male communities that have their own norms.
In general, communities are more concerned about things done to them than in policing their own - which is understandable, but also a flaw. We should see the bad being done by our community as a real issue. Sexual harassment is predominantly committed by men, so it should be seen as more of an issue for men.
(As a side-note, Trond uses the term "soy-boy" which bugs me. As a Korean-American, soy sauce and tofu have always been a regular part of my diet. It seems like a stupid thing to label on.)
As a real manly-man I'll have my low fat, organic, free-range, REAL MILK thank you very much. I am kidding of course. But more seriously: try to not let stupid little things bug you. Some people have actually apologized to me for saying things that maybe, perhaps, could be seen as offensive to Norwegians (including being called German, Finnish, or, dare I say it, Swedish). But that's ridiculous. (My wife sometimes jokes that Norwegians seem to have become a bunch of wussies, and what on earth happened to the vikings? She's not entirely wrong.I make fun of Norwegians too)
Oh, and most people avoid any joke about women these days, for fear of the repercussions. My wife's "strong feminist" friend did not appreciate it when I joked that she still needed my help to open a jar. People should chill a bit IMO.
Are you part of the self-loathing group? I don't know, but I am guessing no. You would know it. I think some of these people are ACTUALLY self-loathing, and I'm not kidding in any way here (even if I can't read their minds of course). Notice how the statements I quoted were phrased. "I'm sorry you have to deal with men." No qualifiers. Seriously? Some people on RPG.net were saying it outright that they were ashamed of being men (this is a long time ago though, since I am no longer welcome there). I also have a trans friend who recently transitioned, and while I never thought he was particularly feminine, I remember thinking that he seemed rather uncomfortable with being a man. I just think the trend is a bit disturbing.
Quote from: Trond;1072505Some people on RPG.net were saying it outright that they were ashamed of being men (this is a long time ago though, since I am no longer welcome there).
It was like 2-3 years ago (2015-16), not really that long ago. I'm sure it has only increased since then. I banned myself from that place in 2016 as self defense mechanism, I have not once regretted that decision.
Quote from: Trond;1072503It is the usual assumption that women have it worse in almost every way. It is not always true of course. EVERYONE gets shit on the internet. Check these forums for instance, the way the guys talk to each other here is often worse than some of the "harassment" some women complain about elsewhere.
That's the magic and delightful touch of this place.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072534That's the magic and delightful touch of this place.
Come to think of it, the "harassment" I got on the strongly anti-harassment site RPG.net was worse. I was told to "shut the fuck up" more than once, someone implied that I was better off dead, etc. If I were a woman, the outrage would probably be heard to the high heavens. The most common reason for me to get such comments was my conviction that there are some fairly obvious statistical differences between men and women.
Quote from: Trond;1072503It is the usual assumption that women have it worse in almost every way. It is not always true of course. EVERYONE gets shit on the internet. Check these forums for instance, the way the guys talk to each other here is often worse than some of the "harassment" some women complain about elsewhere.
I like having a forum where I don't have to walk on eggshells or worry much about what I post. I post stupid shit and I might get called on it, but no one here tries to hound me out of digital existence or damage my actual life.
Quote from: Trond;1072545Come to think of it, the "harassment" I got on the strongly anti-harassment site RPG.net was worse. I was told to "shut the fuck up" more than once, someone implied that I was better off dead, etc. If I were a woman, the outrage would probably be heard to the high heavens. The most common reason for me to get such comments was my conviction that there are some fairly obvious statistical differences between men and women.
Matches my experience too. Much as I may sometimes badmouth this place (on this place only), it is worlds better only BECAUSE it is such an advocate of free speech. That alone is worth so much and something TPB will never match.
Quote from: jhkim;1072480There is both masculine biology and multiple different masculine cultures. For example, someone might say "Well, men are inherently more violent - that's why we have our rape and murder rates." But crime rates vary widely in different countries and different cultures. For example, Japan has nearly one-tenth the murder rate of the United States. That doesn't mean that Japan is purely better - they also have a much larger suicide rate, for example. They're repressed workaholics who are messed up in the head (IMO).
Ah. But again... you're looking at the surface to justify what you ignore below the murky depths. Culture is informed by Masculine *and* Feminine qualities of their populace. As I said earlier - how one attempts to socially engineer the expression of those traits is relative to the goals of what you're trying to achieve. You're either doing this naturally and ordering your culture along mutally accepted lines, or you're going to force it. Either way you're going to have different results. These traits are *not* monolithic.
So by your own example, which is a perfect illustration of my point about your views: Men in Japan are *vastly* more repressed, depressed and prone to suicide over their U.S. counterparts. This is the price of those cultural pressures which subverts such biological impulses.
You can pick your poison - I merely ask: to what degree are you willing to be a "Male feminist" at such costs? Feminists today have an easy answer: there is no answer. Because the cause of Feminism isn't what you, and other Feminists(tm), pretend it to be - which let's be honest, it's about Male Subjugation and Female Dominance. I'm not saying that hyperbolically. I'm not even sure most people (like you) even tacitly realize it consciously (which would have darker implication if you did). Because there is *no* stated end-goal for Feminism(tm) that isn't already extant, that doesn't rely on males being demonized for being male. There are no policies in America that overtly affect women *because* they're women that do not have biological realities attached to them.
Abortion? Serving in military combat roles? Yeah - all of these have biological functions that underpin them (and are worthy debates unto themselves). No, this is about social engineering for ulterior motives that ironically, Feminists pretend overtly or via cognitive dissonance, do not exist. I'm not sure they really care. (This may or may not include you).
Quote from: jhkim;1072480But clearly culture and social environment can make a big difference in negative behaviors like sexual harassment, rape, and murder. Culture can change things for the better.
Wanting to reduce the rate of sexual harassment and other crimes isn't denying male biology - it's recognizing that people aren't just animals who are slaves to their hormones. They have cultural and religious values that change their behavior. We can see through history that the status quo has changed. People are still people and problems remain, but some things have unquestionably gotten a lot better.
No one is saying rape, murder, sexual harassment is not bad. But again: to what degree? Are you willing to pay those costs for total elimination? If not - then where is the finish-line? By what means? See? this is the slippery slope of elitist social engineering that is popular on the Left that has historically led to *horrible* results. You're talking about tinkering with fundamental biological expressions in chasing some nebulous abstraction in lieu of *EVERYTHING* else produced by the culture at large in order to chase an unspecified goal for its own unilateral sake. Ironically for you as a "male feminist" - your own potential cultural-worth.
Nah I'm going to go with: Women have all the same rights as Men. We're all individuals that are free to be good to one another, and we largely are. The Government doesn't need to be regulating our behavior. Hence, that's is what allows us to be free, with the caveat - Shit *WILL* happen. This Utopian nightmare is not attainable. Nor is it desirable.
Quote from: tenbones;1072552Nah I'm going to go with: Women have all the same rights as Men. We're all individuals that are free to be good to one another, and we largely are. The Government doesn't need to be regulating our behavior. Hence, that's is what allows us to be free, with the caveat - Shit *WILL* happen. This Utopian nightmare is not attainable. Nor is it desirable.
Maybe in the flying car future women and men will relate to each other in totally different ways. But after some basics like the Equal Pay Act, and voting rights, we have to let people decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives. If we can accept that a person is non-binary, genderqueer, gay, non-conforming, etc, why can't we accept a burly, stoic guy? Or a feminine woman who wants to be a traditional housewife? There has been an undercurrent of attack against these things since the 60's, and it seems to have gotten worse. "Toxic masculinity", "Cis privilige", etc, etc...
When progressives were bringing awareness of trans and gay issues, I was totally cool with that. When they started crafting threat narratives, they lost me.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1072560Maybe in the flying car future women and men will relate to each other in totally different ways. But after some basics like the Equal Pay Act, and voting rights, we have to let people decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives. If we can accept that a person is non-binary, genderqueer, gay, non-conforming, etc, why can't we accept a burly, stoic guy? Or a feminine woman who wants to be a traditional housewife? There has been an undercurrent of attack against these things since the 60's, and it seems to have gotten worse. "Toxic masculinity", "Cis privilige", etc, etc...
When progressives were bringing awareness of trans and gay issues, I was totally cool with that. When they started crafting threat narratives, they lost me.
The reason they won't allow you to "choose" traditional gender roles is because they are only interested in power over other people. The mixture of that 'power' being rulership, adulation or financial is dependent on the individual in question. Anything that supports a 'traditional' role must be quashed without mercy, or some people might discover their situation isn't as bad as they are being told by so-called leaders.
Feminism example...
Who has been a bigger 'rape enabler' by allowing women to be sexually assaulted?
(1) all those 'toxic' men you have met over your the course of your life.
(2) that leading member of the #metoo movement, Ashley Judd, who decide not to say anything about Harvey Weinstein.
The narrative exists solely as a means to grasp power.
There are a couple of reasons that it looks worse now.
It is easier to notice now because it is harder to hide the true story in this day and age...Think the recent Covington student incident.
The advent of both technology and a 24hr/7days a week 'news' feed has caused the 'seize some power/reset to new outrage/seize more power" cycle to occur much more rapidly.
Quote from: moonsweeper;1072567Feminism example...
Who has been a bigger 'rape enabler' by allowing women to be sexually assaulted?
(1) all those 'toxic' men you have met over your the course of your life.
(2) that leading member of the #metoo movement, Ashley Judd, who decide not to say anything about Harvey Weinstein.
Did not know that. Anyways, the biggest "sinner" in that case is of course Weinstein himself.
I had a minor celebrity crush on Ashley Judd in the 90s, but I have gotten over that. Anyways, I think she has lost track of reality in some respects. I remember her talking about violence towards women in video games, and how it had to end "basta!". And I was thinking; what exactly is she talking about? Does she think that more women are killed in games than men? It's of course the other way round, and not even close. Does she think that you score points by raping women in the games? I know such games do exist, but it's not exactly normal or mainstream (again, not even close to the norm). Should there be no violence whatsoever towards women in games, even if it contains "kick ass" girls as protagonists? Sometimes I wonder if they try so hard to make women to appear "strong" while inadvertently emphasizing that they are weak.
Quote from: Trond;1072573Did not know that. Anyways, the biggest "sinner" in that case is of course Weinstein himself.
While Weinstein is a gross cad, Cassie Jaye (of the Red Pill documentary) had some interesting things to say about the Hollywood culture.
https://youtu.be/ha2Ib8ReArE
(relevant section starts at 13:00)
Quote from: Toadmaster;1072512It was like 2-3 years ago (2015-16), not really that long ago. I'm sure it has only increased since then. I banned myself from that place in 2016 as self defense mechanism, I have not once regretted that decision.
Its still there. If anything the 'background radiation' of scorn directed towards mean is more apparent if not totally overt. Its seems more prominent among the Tangecites that say they're MtF trans. Their loathing for what they were comes across pretty clearly.
Quote from: CarlD.;1072579Its still there. If anything the 'background radiation' of scorn directed towards mean is more apparent if not totally overt. Its seems more prominent among the Tangecites that say they're MtF trans. Their loathing for what they were comes across pretty clearly.
Fuck 'em.
They can sit there and chew on their souls till doomsday.
Quote from: Trond;1072545Come to think of it, the "harassment" I got on the strongly anti-harassment site RPG.net was worse. I was told to "shut the fuck up" more than once, someone implied that I was better off dead, etc. If I were a woman, the outrage would probably be heard to the high heavens. The most common reason for me to get such comments was my conviction that there are some fairly obvious statistical differences between men and women.
You know, after hearing (reading) you say that, I'm tempted to start a new account over there in the guise of a female to see how many non-far left anti-SJW ideas I can get away with expressing.
Quote from: Joey2k;1072587You know, after hearing (reading) you say that, I'm tempted to start a new account over there in the guise of a female to see how many non-far left anti-SJW ideas I can get away with expressing.
Very few. You toe the line or you're out.
Quote from: Trond;1072505As a real manly-man I'll have my low fat, organic, free-range, REAL MILK thank you very much.
Pansy! A REAL man drinks raw milk, unpasteurized, sucked straight from the udder of a sickly cow! :D
Quote from: Joey2k;1072443Nope, TW's just holding women to the same standard of behavior as men. If there's ever any question, switch the genders around:
There are some unexamined or utterly handwaved double standards between men and women that would bring fire and fury of the genders involved were inverted across a wide swath of topics. I mean you'll catch Hell for making a broad generalizations about women regardless of how you frame them (Unless they're complimentary) but they're par for the course when talking about men.
Quote from: Joey2k;1072443Nope, TW's just holding women to the same standard of behavior as men. If there's ever any question, switch the genders around:
Is it still ok? Then neither was the original statement.
This is one of those things that I'm not sure we will ever see a consensus on. I'm even a bit torn myself. On the one hand I would like for everyone to be treated with equal respect. On the other, women are, in fact, a bit more fragile than men when it comes to physical violence.
Quote from: DocJones;1072285Some appropriate satire:
Striking Blow Against Toxic Masculinity, Man Graciously Allows Wife To Shovel Driveway (https://babylonbee.com/news/striking-blow-against-toxic-masculinity-man-graciously-allows-wife-to-shovel-driveway)
:D that's brilliant
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1072589Very few. You toe the line or you're out.
I'm still convinced that a few of the more outspoken female members over there were just mod sock puppets initially used for their entertainment and later for baiting posters into outing themselves as non-true believers.
Quote from: Toadmaster;1072620I'm still convinced that a few of the more outspoken female members over there were just mod sock puppets initially used for their entertainment and later for baiting posters into outing themselves as non-true believers.
I highly doubt that. It's more likely there was a conflict between banning a woman's voice or preserving their safe space for all women.
The fact that they made great bait for purges didn't hurt though.
Quote from: Joey2k;1072587You know, after hearing (reading) you say that, I'm tempted to start a new account over there in the guise of a female to see how many non-far left anti-SJW ideas I can get away with expressing.
If you can you (or anyone else that's interested) may want to check out this thread on Positive Healthy Masculinity. I was starting to wonder if there was such in the Tang culture. Apparently there is, but it definitely show there's perspective on things. I'm not sure exactly what I think about it yet.
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/the-positive-healthy-masculinity-thread.840342/
This (more so the lengthy tumblr link) post on the "female gaze" (using George of the Jungle...) is particular uh...interesting particularly how some aspects of it hew towards the more romanticized vision of Chivalry (lots of Good somewhat passive men protect women from bad aggressive men, etc).
Quote from: Jian, post: 22358129, member: 3902Clearly, this is a fictional example (as was Gomez Addams, I guess) and the piece is as much about female gaze as it is about being a male role model, but I like it:
ms-demeanor.tumblr.com/post/1510 (//ms-demeanor.tumblr.com/post/151068279457)
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1072589Very few. You toe the line or you're out.
The women I knew there didn't get banned so much as fed up with feeling either: Patronized ('mansplained?) by constantly told about what "real women" should thinking, infantilized (I need all you big strong men to speak for me because I'm just a girl?) or having their opinions soundly and conspicuously annoyed, a notable example for me being when a friend of mind tried to participate one of the bi-monthly cheesecake/sexy art threads to say that she liked it and having her characters be sexy badasses.
Quote from: Trond;1072601This is one of those things that I'm not sure we will ever see a consensus on. I'm even a bit torn myself. On the one hand I would like for everyone to be treated with equal respect. On the other, women are, in fact, a bit more fragile than men when it comes to physical violence.
That's really the first I've heard this particularly; I've seen the statistics that women are typically physically weaker than a man of equivalent build and size but not more fragile generally. What's the details if I might ask?
Quote from: CarlD.;1072643The women I knew there didn't get banned so much as fed up with feeling either: Patronized ('mansplained?) by constantly told about what "real women" should thinking, infantilized (I need all you big strong men to speak for me because I'm just a girl?) or having their opinions soundly and conspicuously annoyed, a notable example for me being when a friend of mind tried to participate one of the bi-monthly cheesecake/sexy art threads to say that she liked it and having her characters be sexy badasses.
So not banned so much as shown where the line was drawn and that they were on the wrong side of it?
Sounds about right.
Quote from: CarlD.;1072642If you can you (or anyone else that's interested) may want to check out this thread on Positive Healthy Masculinity. I was starting to wonder if there was such in the Tang culture. Apparently there is, but it definitely show there's perspective on things. I'm not sure exactly what I think about it yet.
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/the-positive-healthy-masculinity-thread.840342/
This (more so the lengthy tumblr link) post on the "female gaze" (using George of the Jungle...) is particular uh...interesting particularly how some aspects of it hew towards the more romanticized vision of Chivalry (lots of Good somewhat passive men protect women from bad aggressive men, etc).
Well, I don't log into my rpg.net account any more, but it sounds like One Good Man syndrome to me.
https://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/the-one-good-man/
Quote from: CarlD.;1072644That's really the first I've heard this particularly; I've seen the statistics that women are typically physically weaker than a man of equivalent build and size but not more fragile generally. What's the details if I might ask?
In most of the skeleton, women literally have thinner bones.
Quote from: Trond;1072655In most of the skeleton, women literally have thinner bones.
Makes senses, thanks.
Quote from: CarlD.;1072644That's really the first I've heard this particularly; I've seen the statistics that women are typically physically weaker than a man of equivalent build and size but not more fragile generally. What's the details if I might ask?
I don't think that the reference was necessarily to women of "equivalent build and size" to men, but to women in general where, on average, they typically have smaller builds.
Quote from: CarlD.;1072656Makes senses, thanks.
Thinner bones, also more body fat and less muscle, even when the same size and weight, which of course most aren't. When I was doing army training it was notable and commented on how much more easily female trainees were injured - the problem seems a lot worse now they have women in the infantry. These were women who seemed large, strong and fit - and certainly thought of themselves that way - vs fairly average men. We were only the Royal Signals, not the Paras.
Apparently if you remove body fat, humans are actually the most sexually dimorphic ape.
Quote from: S'mon;1072659....
Apparently if you remove body fat, humans are actually the most sexually dimorphic ape.
That part, for the record, is incorrect. In orangutans and gorillas the sexual dimorphism is huge. And by that, I mean that there is usually absolutely no doubt if it's a male or female if you look at a skeleton.
Edit: having said that, if you place a naked man next to a naked woman, I could agree that the dimorphism is more striking than in chimpanzees (except when the female chimps are swollen in oestrus)
You do find out some interesting things on this forum from time to time.
Quote from: S'mon;1072659Thinner bones, also more body fat and less muscle, even when the same size and weight, which of course most aren't. When I was doing army training it was notable and commented on how much more easily female trainees were injured - the problem seems a lot worse now they have women in the infantry. These were women who seemed large, strong and fit - and certainly thought of themselves that way - vs fairly average men. We were only the Royal Signals, not the Paras.
Apparently if you remove body fat, humans are actually the most sexually dimorphic ape.
Pretty sure that's Orangutans, who are double the size IIRC. Then again, I don't know the BMI of the average Orangutan, so removing body fat from the great apes might chop that ratio down a lot.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1072671Pretty sure that's Orangutans, who are double the size IIRC.
That's correct.
(aaaand, just to beat the dead horse even more, here's a photo of male and female orangutan skulls. Now those are some males with self respect :D)
(https://53744bf91d44b81762e0-fbbc959d4e21c00b07dbe9c75f9c0b63.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/media/F9/F925F504-AD23-4381-B79F-FA298F0AA2BA/Presentation.Large/Bornean-orangutan-male-left-and-female-skull-showing-sexual-dimorphism.jpg)
The first man to drink milk was definitely badass:
[video]http://www.cc.com/video-clips/dqkern/the-half-hour-first-guy-to-drink-milk[/youtube]
Quote from: jhkim;1072497I had an argument a few weeks ago with someone a friend who thought global warming was going to make the whole human race go extinct within a century, based on what a Buddhist monk said.
Stop making me love global warming so much!!!
Quote from: SHARK;1072479If the idea that Soy milk or whatever decreases testosterone, and increases estrogen--and consequently tends to increase men being fat, lethargic, and feminized is all really "psuedo-science bullshit"--my question would be WHY? Why single out or target Soy as some kind of evil product? Why not pick, I don't know, carrots, or potatoes?
An obvious conspiracy theory would be that soy threatens producers of meats like beef in a way that carrots and potatoes don't.
QuoteWhat is the reason for such focused hate for Soy? It isn't just *one* uber health guy, I've seen a good number of uber-health guys constantly hammer Soy.
A long time ago I visited New York City and saw a giraffe diorama at the natural history museum. The display carefully explained that many people incorrectly believe that giraffes don't have vocal cords. While I was pondering this information, an older man with a small boy approached the display and the man carefully explained to the boy that giraffes do not have vocal cords. If Zen enlightenment consisted of understanding the boundlessness of stupidity, that was the moment I would have attained Zen mastery.
Quote from: rgalex;1072267That's not totally true. Recent polls (this one for example (http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/07/11/experiencing-online-harassment/)) have shown that men tend to experience more online harassment overall than women. When broken down into types of online harassment women receive more stalking and sexual harassment but men suffer more from offensive name calling, intentional embarrassment, physical threats and sustained harassment.
So ... polling shows that men are a bunch of whiny snowflakes. Yes, that fits my observations here.
Quote from: rawma;1072739So ... polling shows that men are a bunch of whiny snowflakes. Yes, that fits my observations here.
Nope. While men experience more harassment online, they also don't view it as serious or feel as threatened by it as women do.
Quote from: rgalex;1072740Nope. While men experience more harassment online, they also don't view it as serious or feel as threatened by it as women do.
It's easier to call them snowflakes than to face male vulnerability.
Quote from: rgalex;1072740Nope. While men experience more harassment online, they also don't view it as serious or feel as threatened by it as women do.
This. Although 'harassment' is not the right word in most cases - it's usually just abuse. Women are more likely to see abuse as harassment. Of course there are exceptions - I'm pretty fragile and tend to see abuse directed at me as threatening, whereas eg Ann Coulter doesn't seem to care, and Michelle Malkin seems to suck up tons of abuse without being deterred.
Quote from: S'mon;1072754This. Although 'harassment' is not the right word in most cases - it's usually just abuse. Women are more likely to see abuse as harassment. Of course there are exceptions - I'm pretty fragile and tend to see abuse directed at me as threatening, whereas eg Ann Coulter doesn't seem to care, and Michelle Malkin seems to suck up tons of abuse without being deterred.
Greetings!
I have always liked Ann Coulter. She's very smart, though sometimes she can be abrasive. Michelle Malkin--damn, that woman brings enough sugar to be sweet--and at the same time being razor sharp and having a really persuasive wit. I love Michelle Malkin. Oh, and Oh My God!--Michelle Malkin is also a WOMAN OF COLOUR!!!! :) How come the SJW's and Feminists don't bow down and kiss Michelle Malkin's Asian ass? :) When Michelle Malkin gets up in the morning and burps before she brushes her teeth, she has more wit and grace than SJW's have in their entire life.:)
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: rawma;1072739So ... polling shows that men are a bunch of whiny snowflakes. Yes, that fits my observations here.
Could you unpack this a bit please?
Quote from: rawma;1072739So ... polling shows that men are a bunch of whiny snowflakes. Yes, that fits my observations here.
Do you also call women who complain about (or simply acknowledge) harassment directed at them "Whiny snowflakes"?
Quote from: CarlD.;1072766Could you unpack this a bit please?
Rawma is either a massive troll, or a massive hypocrite.
Quote from: SHARK;1072759I have always liked Ann Coulter. She's very smart, though sometimes she can be abrasive.
I read her a lot in high school, but am not as enamored with her writings now.
QuoteMichelle Malkin
I like her work a bit better than Ms. Coulter's, but still her policy work tends to be underwhelming. (But, then again, she's not a deep policy person, she's a... what's a non pejorative term for what used to be called Agitator?)
EDIT: I do have to caveat that with one thing. Her book Internment was... a bit of a fanciful rewrite of history and had some highly disturbing implications that should absolutely be discussed in depth.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1072789Rawma is either a massive troll, or a massive hypocrite.
It is also possible to be both at the same time. Telling a bunch of us that we have poor reading skills was a good one :D
Quote from: S'mon;1072754This. Although 'harassment' is not the right word in most cases - it's usually just abuse. Women are more likely to see abuse as harassment. Of course there are exceptions - I'm pretty fragile and tend to see abuse directed at me as threatening, whereas eg Ann Coulter doesn't seem to care, and Michelle Malkin seems to suck up tons of abuse without being deterred.
From my experience, the women I know have had significantly more cases of being stalked online than men - where people pull personal information on them, following them to other online realms or pull details about offline life.
I think name-calling is much less significant and personal than this.
Quote from: jhkim;1072802From my experience, the women I know have had significantly more cases of being stalked online than men - where people pull personal information on them, following them to other online realms or pull details about offline life.
I think name-calling is much less significant and personal than this.
While it certainly seems likely that women suffer more stalking, men may be less likely to complain or even to notice. Someone abusing me in a different forum may just be because we both happen to hang out in two related forums.
Quote from: SHARK;1072759How come the SJW's and Feminists don't bow down and kiss Michelle Malkin's Asian ass? :)
Probably because somebody would frame bowing to an Asian individual as being racially or culturally insensitive and an obvious first step towards an inevitable hate crime.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1072808Probably because somebody would frame bowing to an Asian individual as being racially or culturally insensitive and an obvious first step towards an inevitable hate crime.
Greetings!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! So true, HappyDaze!
I just love how Michelle Malkin, *an Asian Woman*--and a *minority*--just takes SJW's apart. :) I have in my library one or two of her books. She's really smart, funny, and has a sharp wit. I was blown away when I found out that the girl has been a long-time gamer, playing AD&D for *years*. She even held up her original copy of AD&D DMG, and told the SJW's to suck it. :) She's fucking brilliant, classy, and sweet.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkimFrom my experience, the women I know have had significantly more cases of being stalked online than men - where people pull personal information on them, following them to other online realms or pull details about offline life.
I think name-calling is much less significant and personal than this.
Quote from: S'mon;1072806While it certainly seems likely that women suffer more stalking, men may be less likely to complain or even to notice. Someone abusing me in a different forum may just be because we both happen to hang out in two related forums.
It seems difficult to get an objective measurement on this, but again - in my experience, a lot of online men are like Pundit - they have no problem giving and receiving insults, but they are extremely sensitive about any of their personal information being tracked, from their real name to any other details. I'd say that the people who are most sensitive about this that I know are all men.
Is your experience different?
I'd be curious. I do know some women who are guarded about their online identities, but not nearly to the extent of many men.
Quote from: SHARK;1072809Greetings!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! So true, HappyDaze!
I just love how Michelle Malkin, *an Asian Woman*--and a *minority*--just takes SJW's apart. :) I have in my library one or two of her books. She's really smart, funny, and has a sharp wit. I was blown away when I found out that the girl has been a long-time gamer, playing AD&D for *years*. She even held up her original copy of AD&D DMG, and told the SJW's to suck it. :) She's fucking brilliant, classy, and sweet.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
It probably has more to do with her understanding of Korematsu v. United States and the 14th Amendment for why they don't like her.
Quote from: S'mon;1072806While it certainly seems likely that women suffer more stalking, men may be less likely to complain or even to notice. Someone abusing me in a different forum may just be because we both happen to hang out in two related forums.
I'm betting you're right but I've seen exceptions. I work in conduct and do some Title IX work on my campus. The vast majority of stalking cases I've seen were male on female, but hands down the worst one was a female student stalking a male prof. She was arrested at least 3 times and had him terrified.
Quote from: Tait Ransom;1072824I'm betting you're right but I've seen exceptions. I work in conduct and do some Title IX work on my campus. The vast majority of stalking cases I've seen were male on female, but hands down the worst one was a female student stalking a male prof. She was arrested at least 3 times and had him terrified.
My dad had that with a PhD student (although not quite as bad, and it was partly his own fault).
Quote from: jhkim;1072810It seems difficult to get an objective measurement on this, but again - in my experience, a lot of online men are like Pundit - they have no problem giving and receiving insults, but they are extremely sensitive about any of their personal information being tracked, from their real name to any other details. I'd say that the people who are most sensitive about this that I know are all men.
Is your experience different?
I certainly stress about it, but I don't know how typical I am.
I do know that if I see a woman being attacked/insulted online I am much more likely to have a desire to defend her than if it's a man. That seems to be programmed-in behaviour for most people, as Karen Straughan (pbuh) pointed out, and the source of many imbalances in supposedly egalitarian society. And the reason is that women really are more physically vulnerable IRL.
Quote from: S'mon;1072827I certainly stress about it, but I don't know how typical I am.
I do know that if I see a woman being attacked/insulted online I am much more likely to have a desire to defend her than if it's a man. That seems to be programmed-in behaviour for most people, as Karen Straughan (pbuh) pointed out, and the source of many imbalances in supposedly egalitarian society. And the reason is that women really are more physically vulnerable IRL.
And thus the public perception that women deserve more protection than men, and that when men do it, it's terrible, awful, get your guns and ammo and protect the wimmin-folk, and gosh darn, why are men all rapey bastards? Men, do better! Buy Gilette razors.
I think that while there are gendered* aspects to harassment, that it's not a gendered issue. It's bad when anyone does it, and society tends to blame men as a group much more than blaming women as a group.
*I use the word gender because it's the best descriptor, despite being a clumsy and mutilated term.
Are you dudes ever going to stop worrying about randos on the Internet?
Quote from: Brad;1072846Are you dudes ever going to stop worrying about randos on the Internet?
No. Just as we won't stop talking incessantly about pretending to be elves.
Quote from: jhkim;1072810It seems difficult to get an objective measurement on this, but again - in my experience, a lot of online men are like Pundit - they have no problem giving and receiving insults, but they are extremely sensitive about any of their personal information being tracked, from their real name to any other details. I'd say that the people who are most sensitive about this that I know are all men.
Is your experience different?
I'd be curious. I do know some women who are guarded about their online identities, but not nearly to the extent of many men.
Women might not be as guarded, but then increasing they have no need to. Disagree with one in any way and you'll be digitally erased by the social media corps for Misogynist Hate Speech. :D
Also women have no need to fear being fired for expressing opinions on the internet. ;)
Oh? (https://abcnews.go.com/International/woman-fired-tweet-aids-africa-sparks-internet-outrage/story?id=21298519)
Someone may want to inform the rest of society of that. (https://triblive.com/local/allegheny/14314918-74/woman-claims-bny-mellon-fired-her-for-facebook-post-because-shes-white)
People, regardless of gender, get fired for saying stupid shit all the time.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072852Oh? (https://abcnews.go.com/International/woman-fired-tweet-aids-africa-sparks-internet-outrage/story?id=21298519)
Someone may want to inform the rest of society of that. (https://triblive.com/local/allegheny/14314918-74/woman-claims-bny-mellon-fired-her-for-facebook-post-because-shes-white)
People, regardless of gender, get fired for saying stupid shit all the time.
I took the winkey as an indication he was being sarcastic.
Quote from: Brad;1072846Are you dudes ever going to stop worrying about randos on the Internet?
No. I'm worried about never getting to kiss Kiera Knightly. This is VERY AWKWARD.
Quote from: tenbones;1072862No. I'm worried about never getting to kiss Kiera Knightly. This is VERY AWKWARD.
Psst. Chances are very small but slightly higher if you spell her name correctly ;)
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1072858I took the winkey as an indication he was being sarcastic.
Perhaps so... which, in that case, I apologize. I'm very tired and very cold since my power went out this morning.
Quote from: tenbones;1072862No. I'm worried about never getting to kiss Kiera Knightly. This is VERY AWKWARD.
Here's a secret: I'm actually Keira Knightley.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072865Perhaps so... which, in that case, I apologize. I'm very tired and very cold since my power went out this morning.
Ick. :(
Quote from: Brad;1072872Here's a secret: I'm actually Keira Knightley.
Sup, girl?
Quote from: Brad;1072872Here's a secret: I'm actually Keira Knightley.
So, are you going to kiss tenbones? I'm asking for him to avoid awkwardness, because I know how shy he can be.
Quote from: CarlD.;1072766Could you unpack this a bit please?
I don't think a poll is much use for judging this; it judges, at best, subjective experiences, and when you add in the tendency to politicized nonsense like "White people are the real victims of racism!" you won't get a lot of value from such polls. A better experiment would correspond to that used to examine name discrimination in hiring; test whether the same opinions get more abuse if they appear to come from a man or a woman (and test whether people rate the same exchange as more abusive if it appears to be directed at a woman, which would not be surprising).
If this poll separated out the results by "whiny snowflake" versus "everyone else" wouldn't you expect to find that whiny snowflakes are treated much worse than everyone else, even if they had exactly the same experience? Or, for another thought experiment (and be honest, with yourself if nobody else), if a similar poll indicating that women reported being significantly more mistreated online than men were linked to, would you:
[LIST=A]
- attack the pollsters as SJWs and their methodology as flawed, or
- dismiss the women surveyed as whiny snowflakes or professional victims, or
- actually consider that the evidence may be correct despite disagreeing with your preconceived notions?
Consider the responses on this forum when it's been pointed out here that rape reports are no more likely to be false than reports of other crimes.
Quote from: rgalex;1072740While men experience more harassment online, they also don't view it as serious or feel as threatened by it as women do.
So it's a more serious problem for women than for men, even if less frequent? You want to claim that men suffer more but at the same time don't actually suffer? :confused:
Quote from: Trond;1072798It is also possible to be both at the same time. Telling a bunch of us that we have poor reading skills was a good one :D
You have poor reading skills, or you are intentionally dishonest; for you, it's [STRIKE]possible[/STRIKE] probable it's both at the same time. But your claiming to diagnose autism based on forum posts was an even better one than anything I've ever posted.
Quote from: jhkim;1072810It seems difficult to get an objective measurement on this, but again - in my experience, a lot of online men are like Pundit - they have no problem giving and receiving insults, but they are extremely sensitive about any of their personal information being tracked, from their real name to any other details. I'd say that the people who are most sensitive about this that I know are all men.
Is your experience different?
I'd be curious. I do know some women who are guarded about their online identities, but not nearly to the extent of many men.
My guess is that women are more likely to avoid these sort of online free-for-alls; I can't name five posters here that I was sure were women. But maybe women who hide their personal information primarily hide their gender? Then you could only judge by women you know in real life whose online activity you are aware of. I don't know enough women in real life who engage in online disputes to say. I've known plenty of women who were more guarded about things that would reveal their gender, like only putting initials in a phone book listing or next to the doorbells at their apartment building.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072792I like her work a bit better than Ms. Coulter's, but still her policy work tends to be underwhelming. (But, then again, she's not a deep policy person, she's a... what's a non pejorative term for what used to be called Agitator?)
EDIT: I do have to caveat that with one thing. Her book Internment was... a bit of a fanciful rewrite of history and had some highly disturbing implications that should absolutely be discussed in depth.
Is calling someone an Agitator that perjorative now? I mean, I get that there are a lot of bad-actors out there who don't want to be called agitators, because they'd like to think everyone else is stupid and can't see them for what they are, but honestly, I like having agitators for 'my side' and respect the 'other side' right to have their own agitators. Let the best Agitators win!
Also, it gives me a chance to whip out the "Are you not entertained?" quote more often.
FAKE EDIT: At the risk of being ignorant, I'm going to guess that her revisionist history book Interment is about the Japanese Interment in WWII? In that regards it may also be worth noting she is not Japanese herself (phillipino?), and her family may have a bad history with the Japanese circa WWII that colors her outlook? Again: I'm doing some guesswork (eg Ignorant), but perhaps what you call Revisionist is more accurately 'A different perspective', as she presumably has different biases than you do. We all have biases, which is one thing I find that makes reading so very exciting: Its a chance to see the world through different eyes.
Quote from: rawma;1072898You have poor reading skills, or you are intentionally dishonest; for you, it's [STRIKE]possible[/STRIKE] probable it's both at the same time. But your claiming to diagnose autism based on forum posts was an even better one than anything I've ever posted.
So, lecturing on "reading skills" again. Also; in the very same post, responding to "While men experience more harassment online, they also don't view it as serious or feel as threatened by it as women do.":
Quote from: rawma;1072898So it's a more serious problem for women than for men, even if less frequent? You want to claim that men suffer more but at the same time don't actually suffer? :confused:
No Rgalex said they don't VIEW it as serious or FEEL as threatened.
Guys, I'm almost feeling sorry for Rawma here, maybe we should just leave him alone.
Quote from: rawma;1072898Consider the responses on this forum when it's been pointed out here that rape reports are no more likely to be false than reports of other crimes.
I must have missed that one. Got a link to the thread?
Quote from: Spike;1072901Is calling someone an Agitator that perjorative now? I mean, I get that there are a lot of bad-actors out there who don't want to be called agitators, because they'd like to think everyone else is stupid and can't see them for what they are, but honestly, I like having agitators for 'my side' and respect the 'other side' right to have their own agitators. Let the best Agitators win!
Also, it gives me a chance to whip out the "Are you not entertained?" quote more often.
I'm not sure if Agitator is pejorative or not, but I feel like it has a more negative connotation than I was trying to throw around. I could be wrong. But, indeed, she is a verbal gladiator, so "are you not entertained?!" fits.
QuoteFAKE EDIT: At the risk of being ignorant, I'm going to guess that her revisionist history book Interment is about the Japanese Interment in WWII? In that regards it may also be worth noting she is not Japanese herself (phillipino?), and her family may have a bad history with the Japanese circa WWII that colors her outlook? Again: I'm doing some guesswork (eg Ignorant), but perhaps what you call Revisionist is more accurately 'A different perspective', as she presumably has different biases than you do. We all have biases, which is one thing I find that makes reading so very exciting: Its a chance to see the world through different eyes.
Yes, it was about the Japanese internment during WW2. I'm not sure what her family ethnicity is, nor is it terribly relevant for the points she made. She was trying to draw a parallel to say that because we used interment camps on Japanese in the Second World War, it's totally OK to do it again to Arabs in the GWOT (back when it was called the GWOT instead of "Overseas Operations," which is when the book was written also). Only she downplayed the things that happened considerably and got a rebuke from Korematsu himself on it (Korematsu v. United States, which was the legendary Supreme Court case that was all about the internment camps).
Which was... interesting to see her opinion on the matter because Conservative legal circles have, for decades now, considered the Korematsu case to be as terrible of a decision as Dredd Scott. It allows legalized government interment camps to round up American citizens and throw them into internment without any real justification other than, "We are at war with someone who looks like you." So to see a leading Conservative pundit defend it so much was an exercise in mental gymnastics akin to justifying drone strike assassinations on US citizens (thanks, Obama). (Fun fact: Korematsu is still the law of the land, probably because there's been no case that allowed it to be re-examined.)
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072938It allows legalized government interment camps to round up American citizens and throw them into internment without any real justification other than, "We are at war with someone who looks like you."
"...And who doesn't look like Us."
While there was a mild security threat on West-Coast USA from Japanese-Americans, there was a much bigger potential security threat on the East-Coast USA from German-Americans. But the Germans counted as "us", and the Japanese didn't.
Good point.
...hmm, does that mean if we truly are becoming a more melting pot society, "And who Don't Look Like Us," is becoming a smaller and smaller group?
Greetings!
Well, on the West Coast, there were also concerns that the ordinary citizens were going to riot en masse and hunt the Japanese down and kill them all. It certainly wasn't an issue that local law enforcement could even dream of handling during those times. The government *was* geneuinely concerned that there were going to be mass lynchings and other executions of Japanese people. The people everywhere, to every law enforcement and government official, everyone--was demanding that the government do something about the Japanese. No one was going to listen to sweet, reassuring talk about how we need to love the Japanese. So, in some ways, the internment camps were a sort of emergency response not only to make efforts to curb any internal Japanese assistance to any Japanese attacks or invasion of the West Coast, but also to protect the Japanese Americans from annihilation.
I think something that is often entirely lost on most modern-day Americans is how desperately exposed, and vulnerable *everyone* felt during those days after Pearl Harbor. And when I say *everyone*--I mean of course, all normal people, but also the *government*. People, in the *millions* believed that the Japanese were going to invade the West Coast. Fear of this reality was everywhere. The government itself was terrified as well, because the government was honestly doubtful about the nation's ability to resist such an invasion in any meaningful way.
I think also that many people now have the supreme luxury of historical hindsight. I remember my own father telling me, as he was a veteran of World War II, that everyone thinks this is all swell now, but he told me,
"Back then, we weren't certain at all that we were going to win. In fact, there was a distinct possibility that the goddamn Nazis and Japs were gonna conquer everyone."
So, even the government was kind of groping its way in the dark, as panic and fear was everywhere. America, and the Western Allies, and all of our friends, when you think about it, everyone was weak compared to the forces of evil. Everywhere, we were stupid, and blind. The enemy was always three steps ahead of us, the French, the British, the Australians, the Phillipines, India, the Chinese. No one had an answer for the Japanese, except we were fucked. Our forces were pathetic. Old, obselete, and slow. No supplies. Little fuel. No spare parts. Lack of training, lack of knowledge. Everyone was confused, and no one knew what to do.
Imagine trying to remain calm, and reasonable, when all of the so called "experts" have all been horribly, terribly proven wrong? Of course, there's a reason why President Roosevelt, General George C. Marshal, and Admiral Ernest J. King got together, and proceeded to fire nearly all of the brass of the United States Army and United States Navy. Wholesale changes in command structure and leadership were undertaken after Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor, the crushing defeat, the absolute, helpless slaughter of our people on that Sunday morning deeply traumatized this country in absolute, profound ways.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK;1072973Greetings!
Well, on the West Coast, there were also concerns that the ordinary citizens were going to riot en masse and hunt the Japanese down and kill them all. It certainly wasn't an issue that local law enforcement could even dream of handling during those times. The government *was* geneuinely concerned that there were going to be mass lynchings and other executions of Japanese people. The people everywhere, to every law enforcement and government official, everyone--was demanding that the government do something about the Japanese. No one was going to listen to sweet, reassuring talk about how we need to love the Japanese. So, in some ways, the internment camps were a sort of emergency response not only to make efforts to curb any internal Japanese assistance to any Japanese attacks or invasion of the West Coast, but also to protect the Japanese Americans from annihilation.
That would be convincing if not for the fact that EO 9066, which authorized it all, happened within 60 days of Pearl Harbor, well before any local violence, beyond isolated and sporadic incidents, happened. In fact, the only recordings we really have of any mass violence before EO 9066... was conducted by the FBI and the Navy, both of which were invading homes and locking up random Japanese Americans suspected of spying. (Nothing was ever found.)
Further, many reports of violence and calls for them to be locked up came from the infamous DeWitt Report. And they were almost all fabrications completely made up by LTG DeWitt (and his staff) to convince the government that EO 9066 was needed. Originally, he proposed Italians and Germans as well, but the government was having none of that.
Only a few of the camps actually did things like college-release programs. Many suffered from deteriorating conditions and hard labor camps that were pretty terrible. While they never approached the level of systematic eradication of the concentration camps in Europe, they certainly were NOT there to protect the Japanese. (For example of how they were better, there were at least attempts to hold schools and religious centers in several of the internment camps.)
If anything, it more resembled a return to chattel slavery than it did concentration camps.
QuoteI think something that is often entirely lost on most modern-day Americans is how desperately exposed, and vulnerable *everyone* felt during those days after Pearl Harbor. And when I say *everyone*--I mean of course, all normal people, but also the *government*. People, in the *millions* believed that the Japanese were going to invade the West Coast. Fear of this reality was everywhere. The government itself was terrified as well, because the government was honestly doubtful about the nation's ability to resist such an invasion in any meaningful way.
Many people did, but the government certainly did not feel that way. The government did, however, certainly stoke those fears as it was productive to its own interests. We know, from their own declassified reports, the government knew that Pearl Harbor was a stretch operation. The Japanese could not invade the mainland. They simply lacked the logistics to do it. That's part of why the European theater was so heavily favored in the early days of the war (that and it's all-but-inevitable collapse if we didn't intervene).
QuoteI think also that many people now have the supreme luxury of historical hindsight. I remember my own father telling me, as he was a veteran of World War II, that everyone thinks this is all swell now, but he told me,
"Back then, we weren't certain at all that we were going to win. In fact, there was a distinct possibility that the goddamn Nazis and Japs were gonna conquer everyone."
My grandfather was in the Pacific Theater and stationed all over the place. He told a very different story about concerns of a Japanese invasion.
QuoteSo, even the government was kind of groping its way in the dark, as panic and fear was everywhere. America, and the Western Allies, and all of our friends, when you think about it, everyone was weak compared to the forces of evil. Everywhere, we were stupid, and blind. The enemy was always three steps ahead of us, the French, the British, the Australians, the Phillipines, India, the Chinese. No one had an answer for the Japanese, except we were fucked. Our forces were pathetic. Old, obselete, and slow. No supplies. Little fuel. No spare parts. Lack of training, lack of knowledge. Everyone was confused, and no one knew what to do.
This... is not true at all. Churchill gives a decent (if British-centered and British-serving) overview of what's going on in the Pacific Theater in his first hand accounts in The Grand Alliance, the Hinge of Fate, and Closing the Circle.
We had answers for the Japanese, and we were using them all throughout the war. It's part of why China ended up the way it is.
QuoteImagine trying to remain calm, and reasonable, when all of the so called "experts" have all been horribly, terribly proven wrong? Of course, there's a reason why President Roosevelt, General George C. Marshal, and Admiral Ernest J. King got together, and proceeded to fire nearly all of the brass of the United States Army and United States Navy. Wholesale changes in command structure and leadership were undertaken after Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor, the crushing defeat, the absolute, helpless slaughter of our people on that Sunday morning deeply traumatized this country in absolute, profound ways.
Who else besides Admiral Kimmel was fired over Pearl Harbor? He's the only one of the brass that I'm aware of who got canned over Pearl Harbor itself.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072976That would be convincing if not for the fact that EO 9066, which authorized it all, happened within 60 days of Pearl Harbor, well before any local violence, beyond isolated and sporadic incidents, happened. In fact, the only recordings we really have of any mass violence before EO 9066... was conducted by the FBI and the Navy, both of which were invading homes and locking up random Japanese Americans suspected of spying. (Nothing was ever found.)
Further, many reports of violence and calls for them to be locked up came from the infamous DeWitt Report. And they were almost all fabrications completely made up by LTG DeWitt (and his staff) to convince the government that EO 9066 was needed. Originally, he proposed Italians and Germans as well, but the government was having none of that.
Thanks, Tanin! This has been investigated many times - with no finding of any factual grounds for the internment, and the U.S. government has officially apologized multiple times.
I don't see why it should be controversial that the government was racist at the time of WWII. I mean, we had a frickin segregated army at the time, and plenty of politicians (especially Democrats) made openly racist statements. Denying that is ridiculous.
To be clear - I am very much anti-Japan. My father grew up under Japanese occupation, and they did plenty of atrocities. But then, so did the Nazis - yet German-Americans were largely untouched by internment. There were some German-Americans who were separately detained, but that was selective based on suspicion, and on a much lesser scale than Japanese-Americans who were all rounded up regardless of their history.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072976That would be convincing if not for the fact that EO 9066, which authorized it all, happened within 60 days of Pearl Harbor, well before any local violence, beyond isolated and sporadic incidents, happened. In fact, the only recordings we really have of any mass violence before EO 9066... was conducted by the FBI and the Navy, both of which were invading homes and locking up random Japanese Americans suspected of spying. (Nothing was ever found.)
Further, many reports of violence and calls for them to be locked up came from the infamous DeWitt Report. And they were almost all fabrications completely made up by LTG DeWitt (and his staff) to convince the government that EO 9066 was needed. Originally, he proposed Italians and Germans as well, but the government was having none of that.
Only a few of the camps actually did things like college-release programs. Many suffered from deteriorating conditions and hard labor camps that were pretty terrible. While they never approached the level of systematic eradication of the concentration camps in Europe, they certainly were NOT there to protect the Japanese. (For example of how they were better, there were at least attempts to hold schools and religious centers in several of the internment camps.)
If anything, it more resembled a return to chattel slavery than it did concentration camps.
Many people did, but the government certainly did not feel that way. The government did, however, certainly stoke those fears as it was productive to its own interests. We know, from their own declassified reports, the government knew that Pearl Harbor was a stretch operation. The Japanese could not invade the mainland. They simply lacked the logistics to do it. That's part of why the European theater was so heavily favored in the early days of the war (that and it's all-but-inevitable collapse if we didn't intervene).
My grandfather was in the Pacific Theater and stationed all over the place. He told a very different story about concerns of a Japanese invasion.
This... is not true at all. Churchill gives a decent (if British-centered and British-serving) overview of what's going on in the Pacific Theater in his first hand accounts in The Grand Alliance, the Hinge of Fate, and Closing the Circle.
We had answers for the Japanese, and we were using them all throughout the war. It's part of why China ended up the way it is.
Who else besides Admiral Kimmel was fired over Pearl Harbor? He's the only one of the brass that I'm aware of who got canned over Pearl Harbor itself.
Greetings!
Hah!! Tanin Wulf, yes, I love Winston Churchill as well. I've read "The Grand Alliance", "The Hinge of Fate" and "Closing the Circle." Churchill's inspiring faith and hope, though, while certainly inspiring, and in some ways prescient, "The New World, like an avenging angel, will come to the rescue of the Old World and Western Civilization, Hitler and the Japanese will be ground into the dust and ashes of defeat, etc." at the time though, didn't correspond to the reality of Malaysia, Burma, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Phillipines, the Dutch East Indies, the utter crushing of the HMS Prince of Wales and the HMS Renown in the open sea by Japanese Carrier Air Power, the loss of the Solomon Islands, Pearl Harbor, and the Battle of the Coral Sea. Had we not been triumphant at Coral Sea, and at Guadalcanal, the Japanese would have invaded and conquered Australia. Japan essentially broke British power in the Asian and Pacific Theater.
Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, the Solomon Island campaign, and Midway were all hair-thin strokes of fortune for the Allies, Tanin. We could have easily lost any one of those battles, any of which would have had extreme and dire consequences for defeat. So, our victory was certainly *not* guaranteed, or a foregone conclusion, despite what a few may have hoped for and believed at the time.
I think the author is Geoffrey Perrett, "How the United States Army Won World War II" details how Washington cleaned house with the brass of both the Navy and Army being fired, retired, dismissed, or otherwise sidelined from major command after the disaster of Pearl Harbor. Furthermore, according to what I have read from General George Patton, as well as General Douglas MacArthur, our military forces were in absolute disarray, and we were not certain of victory. Perrett goes into extensive detail on the secret meetings, reports, and documents throughout the war from Washington, and the wholesale changes through command and control, administration, training, as well as equipment, tactics, and doctrine that were necessary to avoid losing the war, and gradually marching to victory.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkim;1072982Thanks, Tanin! This has been investigated many times - with no finding of any factual grounds for the internment, and the U.S. government has officially apologized multiple times.
I don't see why it should be controversial that the government was racist at the time of WWII. I mean, we had a frickin segregated army at the time, and plenty of politicians (especially Democrats) made openly racist statements. Denying that is ridiculous.
To be clear - I am very much anti-Japan. My father grew up under Japanese occupation, and they did plenty of atrocities. But then, so did the Nazis - yet German-Americans were largely untouched by internment. There were some German-Americans who were separately detained, but that was selective based on suspicion, and on a much lesser scale than Japanese-Americans who were all rounded up regardless of their history.
Greetings!
Yep! Indeed, to their credit and great honour, Japanese Americans who served in I think it was the 442nd Regiment of the United States Army fought with outstanding valour throughout the war in Europe, especially during their exploits in the Italian Campaign.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Greetings!
I'm also reminded of despite our own fortunate superiority in Intelligence over the Japanese through Magic, even that was not enough to ensure victory. I've read top secret documents uncovered in Japan that relates how the Japanese were far advanced in their own research into the Atomic Bomb, and were far closer to achieving the operational deployment than our own Intelligence at the time ever suspected. The Japanese had detailed plans on deploying an Atomic attack by using their superior long-range submarines to detonate an Atomic attack and annihilate San Diego and San Francisco, with additional bombs planned for execution against American invasion forces gathered to invade the home islands of Japan. The Japanese maintained secret testing and manufacturing facilities in hidden bases deep in Korea, as well as subterranean laboratories in Japan itself. The Japanese furthermore had an elaborate "front" scheme to feed us a false estimation of where they were in regards to their research and development of Atomic weapons. The real truth of the matter, the scope and depth of the Japanese Atomic program was not known or understood in detail until well after the end of World War II. Unsurprisingly, such inconvenient documentation is uncomfortable for many idealistic academics, even to this day, who prefer to marinate themselves in the soothing, smug and self-righteous anti-American narrative, where the Empire of Japan is forever cast in the role of being the poor "victim" of American bloodlust with the atomic attacks against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It is certainly sobering to think that had the war continued on for much longer, America could have been annihilated with Japanese Atomic Bomb attacks.
The Japanese were also developing deadly chemical weapons, and had plans to deploy them during an American invasion of Japan. The Japanese had hundreds of thousands of Chinese, Korean, and other Asian women forced into sexual slavery to their Japanese masters. The Japanese also enslaved hundreds of thousands, perhaps more, of other Asians who, according to Japanese Imperial doctrine, were subhuman, and inferior. They were born to be slaves to the glorious Empire. The Japanese also had several torture camps, secret medical facilities where they researched and conducted biological experiments on conquered people, including American and Allied prisoners of war. The Japanese also had research and operational jet rockets and aircraft, as well. It is a great and wonderful thing that we liberated Asia from tyranny, and crushed Japan precisely when we did. Another six months, or a year of fighting may have seen us suffer utter calamity.
Oh, and strangely, I don't remember if Churchill ever admitted such, but I remember reading somewhere that at one point, the Nazi U-Boat campaign against Britain was so ruthlessly successful that Britain was *SIX WEEKS* away from mass starvation, which would have resulted in their defeat and subjection by the Nazis. The American and British efforts at desperately saving Britain from annihilation also hung by a thread, and such a victory was also achieved in the beginning by strokes of fortune unforeseen.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkim;1072982To be clear - I am very much anti-Japan. My father grew up under Japanese occupation, and they did plenty of atrocities. But then, so did the Nazis - yet German-Americans were largely untouched by internment. There were some German-Americans who were separately detained, but that was selective based on suspicion, and on a much lesser scale than Japanese-Americans who were all rounded up regardless of their history.
German-Americans had largely had their moment of "who am I" with WW1. Lots of suspicion, and some divided loyalty. But there was a war answering that question in the rear view mirror.
Internment was nothing to be proud of, but there weren't the same Qs for both pops. And there was the issue with the J-As on Hawaii helping and hiding one of the pilots attacking Pearl from US Authorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_incident
QuoteHistorian Gordon Prange notes that it was "the rapidity with which the three resident Japanese went over to the pilot's cause" which troubled the Hawaiians. "The more pessimistic among them cited the Ni'ihau incident as proof that no one could trust any Japanese, even if an American citizen, not to go over to Japan if it appeared expedient."[13]
Yes, it's wikipedia. Cut-and-paste or nothing atm.
Like I said - doesn't make it a red-letter-day for the US. Let's not pretend there weren't concerns stemming from objective experience.
Quote from: Brad;1072872Here's a secret: I'm actually Keira Knightley.
Holy shit. I KNEW IT
Quote from: EOTB;1072994German-Americans had largely had their moment of "who am I" with WW1. Lots of suspicion, and some divided loyalty. But there was a war answering that question in the rear view mirror.
Internment was nothing to be proud of, but there weren't the same Qs for both pops. And there was the issue with the J-As on Hawaii helping and hiding one of the pilots attacking Pearl from US Authorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_incident
Yes, it's wikipedia. Cut-and-paste or nothing atm.
Like I said - doesn't make it a red-letter-day for the US. Let's not pretend there weren't concerns stemming from objective experience.
Greetings!
I agree, EOTB. I did some work on various topics of America during World War II. I had to research through lots of primary sources, and documents *at the time* and while there was certainly racist elements in our propaganda for exapmple, sifting through newspaper clippings, government documents, interviews and testimonies, radio programs, and so on, it became clear to me that this country was absolutely terrified. The government was most certainly not in total control of a damned thing, and there was plenty of fear, speculation, rumour, and uncertainty to go around for everyone.
The Japanese did have spies in Hawaii, and as you mentioned, there were traitors also involved.
My earlier commentary also alludes to the dissonance between what we often smugly conratulate ourselves on knowing *now*--but at the time, there was not anywhere near such certainty. We most certainly did not KNOW that Japan couldn't invade the West Coast. Stupid, smug bastards at the time assured us that Japan couldn't attack us at Pearl Harbor, either, that Pearl Harbor was secure, that Pearl Harbor was beyond the reach of Japan, and so on. It was a lot of smug arrogance that also died in the oil-soaked, burning American battleships in the waters off Ford Island, besides our heroic men. The early years of the war are full of surprises and achievements by the Japanese that the "experts" all reassured us were impossible beforehand. The fact is, there was a great deal of racism, and institutionalized arrogance and smugness in both the US and the British government and high commands that were proven to be disastrously stupid and wrong in the ensuing events. Whole doctrines, whole careers, government, academic, and military--were fucked after the early years of the war, and thrown into the ashheap of history, hopefully as lessons for future generations of citizens and soldiers alike.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK;1072984Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, the Solomon Island campaign, and Midway were all hair-thin strokes of fortune for the Allies, Tanin. We could have easily lost any one of those battles, any of which would have had extreme and dire consequences for defeat.
It was quite a stroke of luck that Australia didn't get invaded. But the US could make so many more aircraft carriers than Japan, and was so much better at keeping them in action - and at keeping the pilots alive - that the longer the war went on, the stronger the US was bound to get. It would have taken a lot more than 1, 2 or 3 more defeats for the US, I think. A Nazi invasion of Britain was a longshot, but it was contemplated. A Japanese invasion of the USA was much less likely.
edit: Of course Hawaii might have been invaded, which would have been no fun for the inhabitants.
Invasion jitters lasted about 3 months after Pearl Harbor. Four months after the attack Tokyo was bombed (Doolittle Raiders) and within 6 months the initiative of the war had almost entirely gone from Japan to the USA (Battle of Midway). Eleven months after Pearl Harbor the Battle for Guadalcanal had decisively gone in favor of the US and the Japanese had completely abandoned efforts at expansion.
The Battle of Midway was not remotely a close thing. The "Miracle at Midway" was a fabrication of the US media further supported by the leadership of post-war Japan to excuse their failure. The Japanese had zero chance of taking Midway island.
Quote from: S'mon;1073009It was quite a stroke of luck that Australia didn't get invaded. But the US could make so many more aircraft carriers than Japan, and was so much better at keeping them in action - and at keeping the pilots alive - that the longer the war went on, the stronger the US was bound to get. It would have taken a lot more than 1, 2 or 3 more defeats for the US, I think. A Nazi invasion of Britain was a longshot, but it was contemplated. A Japanese invasion of the USA was much less likely.
edit: Of course Hawaii might have been invaded, which would have been no fun for the inhabitants.
That is another fun piece of information. In 1941 the US had 7 fleet carriers vs 10 Japanese. During the war the US built 48 new fleet carriers and about 100 small escort carriers, vs the Japanese who built 6.
Quote from: SHARK;1072992I'm also reminded of despite our own fortunate superiority in Intelligence over the Japanese through Magic, even that was not enough to ensure victory. I've read top secret documents uncovered in Japan that relates how the Japanese were far advanced in their own research into the Atomic Bomb, and were far closer to achieving the operational deployment than our own Intelligence at the time ever suspected. The Japanese had detailed plans on deploying an Atomic attack by using their superior long-range submarines to detonate an Atomic attack and annihilate San Diego and San Francisco, with additional bombs planned for execution against American invasion forces gathered to invade the home islands of Japan. The Japanese maintained secret testing and manufacturing facilities in hidden bases deep in Korea, as well as subterranean laboratories in Japan itself. The Japanese furthermore had an elaborate "front" scheme to feed us a false estimation of where they were in regards to their research and development of Atomic weapons.
From what I read (and having worked as a high energy physicist) , the Japanese were aware of the possibility of nuclear weapons, and had skilled physicists with knowledge of the principles. However, they flatly didn't have the resources to carry out the enrichment necessary to produce anything close to a working bomb. As far as I can tell, they didn't even achieve a chain reaction in research and development. They had one cyclotron and a few experimental enrichment setups. Producing even a single atomic bomb was years away, and they would have needed a lot more resources to manage it than they had.
https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/japanese-atomic-bomb-project
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program
Quote from: jhkim;1073017From what I read (and having worked as a high energy physicist) , the Japanese were aware of the possibility of nuclear weapons, and had skilled physicists with knowledge of the principles. However, they flatly didn't have the resources to carry out the enrichment necessary to produce anything close to a working bomb. As far as I can tell, they didn't even achieve a chain reaction in research and development. They had one cyclotron and a few experimental enrichment setups. Producing even a single atomic bomb was years away, and they would have needed a lot more resources to manage it than they had.
https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/japanese-atomic-bomb-project
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program
Greetings!
I'm sorry I don't have the name of the scholar or the book at hand, Jhkim. The book I read by this historian I have in mind though laid all this research out about what the Japanese were up to with their Atomic research. The impression I got from his work, with the documentation, analysis and so on, was that the Japanese were closing in on the Atomic bomb. Much closer than we ever suspected at the time, so far that the Japanese had plans to deploy them and strike America. They planned on using some of their large, dvanced, super-submarines to load an atomic bomb inside it, and detonate it inside San Francisco Bay. A second target was San Diego, and other bombs were to be used in a similar fashion against American invasion fleets, known to be soon gathering for the invasion of Japan. His documentation and research of primary Japanese documents, memos and so on seem to be pretty persuasive to me.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Toadmaster;1073014The Battle of Midway was not remotely a close thing. The "Miracle at Midway" was a fabrication of the US media further supported by the leadership of post-war Japan to excuse their failure. The Japanese had zero chance of taking Midway island.
Greetings!
Really, Toad? I have to ask then--what historian has claimed that idea? Indeed, we had an advantage in Intelligence--we knew what the Japanese objectives were, but the fact remains that the Japanese Imperial Navy under Admiral Isoruko Yammamoto outnumbered our own naval forces in a huge way. I have read dozens of historians, as well as diaries and interviews with men who were actually present during the Battle of Midway, as well as conferring with recent, teaching scholars--and no source I have ever heard of would agree with your assessment.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK;1073018I'm sorry I don't have the name of the scholar or the book at hand, Jhkim. The book I read by this historian I have in mind though laid all this research out about what the Japanese were up to with their Atomic research. The impression I got from his work, with the documentation, analysis and so on, was that the Japanese were closing in on the Atomic bomb. Much closer than we ever suspected at the time, so far that the Japanese had plans to deploy them and strike America. They planned on using some of their large, dvanced, super-submarines to load an atomic bomb inside it, and detonate it inside San Francisco Bay. A second target was San Diego, and other bombs were to be used in a similar fashion against American invasion fleets, known to be soon gathering for the invasion of Japan. His documentation and research of primary Japanese documents, memos and so on seem to be pretty persuasive to me.
I only know basically what is in the links I gave, but those have accounts from Los Alamos people who reviewed what was captured in Japan. I could believe that there were plans, but they would only be wishful thinking / remote contingencies - much like U.S. plans for how to defend against a ground invasion. I have no doubt that if they could, the Japanese military would have used atomic bombs on the U.S. mainland. But they didn't have the capability.
Particularly at the time, nuclear enrichment was a really intensive process - it's not like you could hide a full facility in a cave. The Manhattan Project employed over 130,000 people. The Japanese had only a few dozen people working on R&D and collecting raw material. From everything I read online, they produced no chain reaction and had no weapons-grade material.
If you can find the book, I'd be curious about the reference. The Wikipedia article I linked earlier mentions a similar theory, but it sounds pretty thoroughly debunked. I found this paper with some more details. It's more about attitudes of people, but it incidentally includes more details on the researchers.
http://www.academia.edu/9733384/Revised_Version_of_Searching_for_the_Objective_Analysis_Japanese_Atomic_Bomb_Research_and_the_Victimhood_Narrative
Quote from: EOTB;1072994Like I said - doesn't make it a red-letter-day for the US. Let's not pretend there weren't concerns stemming from objective experience.
It's curious that if the objective experience were truly that convincing, why DeWitt's report still tried to trump things up and tried to target Germans and Italians as well.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1073026It's curious that if the objective experience were truly that convincing, why DeWitt's report still tried to trump things up and tried to target Germans and Italians as well.
Are you saying the incident didn't happen? Or are you taking my statement beyond where I left it?
Beyond.
Quote from: SHARK;1073019Greetings!
Really, Toad? I have to ask then--what historian has claimed that idea? Indeed, we had an advantage in Intelligence--we knew what the Japanese objectives were, but the fact remains that the Japanese Imperial Navy under Admiral Isoruko Yammamoto outnumbered our own naval forces in a huge way. I have read dozens of historians, as well as diaries and interviews with men who were actually present during the Battle of Midway, as well as conferring with recent, teaching scholars--and no source I have ever heard of would agree with your assessment.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
The Japanese were outnumbered from the beginning. Their invasion of Midway was planned around a defensive force of around 750 Marines and 50 aircraft. In reality Midway had nearly 2000 Marines and more than 100 aircraft. Then you add in the submarine force, 2 carrier groups and the lack of surprise.
As far as historians I'd recommend reading Shattered Sword, it blows holes in many of the popular myths.
http://www.shatteredswordbook.com/
Quote from: Toadmaster;1073033The Japanese were outnumbered from the beginning. Their invasion of Midway was planned around a defensive force of around 750 Marines and 50 aircraft. In reality Midway had nearly 2000 Marines and more than 100 aircraft. Then you add in the submarine force, 2 carrier groups and the lack of surprise.
As far as historians I'd recommend reading Shattered Sword, it blows holes in many of the popular myths.
http://www.shatteredswordbook.com/
Greetings!
Wait, Toad. I'm not necessarily talking about the specific *assault* on Midway Island. I'm talking about the entire naval battle. The naval battle where the largest units of the IJN were there--they had their main Fleet Carriers there, the Kaga, the Soryu, Hiru, and the Akagi, I think. Plus battleships, cruisers, destroyers, and lots of submarines. The IJN amphibious operation, and its accompanying ships, were actually a seperate force.
American naval and air forces were outnumbered, and outclassed, in every conventional way. Our third carrier, the U.S.S. Yorktown wasn't even at full strength, having been damaged severely in battle earlier. The aircraft on Midway were old, and obelete. By all standard expectations, they were negligable.
However, those 100 plus land-based aircraft stationed on Midway Island, obselete as they were--were flown by United States Marines! Marine Aviators. The Japanese forgot about the US Marines, and would pay for their mistake.
Historian John Keegan said that Midway was the most stunning naval victory in history. Clearly, it was an upset. America was expected to be crushed, and swept aside.
Forces Involved: United States
3 fleet carriers
7 heavy cruisers
1 light cruiser
15 destroyers
233 carrier-based aircraft
127 land-based aircraft
16 submarines[1]
Imperial Japanese Navy
1st Carrier Striking Force:
4 fleet carriers
2 battleships
2 heavy cruisers
1 light cruiser
12 destroyers
248 carrier-based aircraft[2]
16 floatplanes
Midway Support Force:
4 heavy cruisers
2 destroyers
12 floatplanes
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I'm not an expert on this, but I also think that Midway was not a done deal, it could have gone particularly badly if the Americans hadn't deciphered the Japanese plans.
But as a whole, the Japanese war on America was doomed. America has massive resources, and also managed to use its capabilities for production (normally used in capitalistic endeavors) for its wartime effort. There is a (possibly apocryphal) quote somewhere of a Japanese military leader saying after Pearl Harbor "I think we may have woken a sleeping giant". Even if they didn't say it like that, some of them must have realized it.
Quote from: Trond;1073040I'm not an expert on this, but I also think that Midway was not a done deal, it could have gone particularly badly if the Americans hadn't deciphered the Japanese plans.
But as a whole, the Japanese war on America was doomed. America has massive resources, and also managed to use its capabilities for production (normally used in capitalistic endeavors) for its wartime effort. There is a (possibly apocryphal) quote somewhere of a Japanese military leader saying after Pearl Harbor "I think we may have woken a sleeping giant". Even if they didn't say it like that, some of them must have realized it.
That "sleeping giant" quote was from Admiral Yamamoto, who was against going to war with the USA IIRC.
Also IIRC, the US Navy got very lucky in having a fighter group engage one of the Japanese carriers while the flight deck was jammed with planes being rearmed with bombs. I need to reread that battle history, I've forgotten too much.
Quote from: SHARK;1073038Greetings!
Wait, Toad. I'm not necessarily talking about the specific *assault* on Midway Island. I'm talking about the entire naval battle. The naval battle where the largest units of the IJN were there--they had their main Fleet Carriers there, the Kaga, the Soryu, Hiru, and the Akagi, I think. Plus battleships, cruisers, destroyers, and lots of submarines. The IJN amphibious operation, and its accompanying ships, were actually a seperate force.
American naval and air forces were outnumbered, and outclassed, in every conventional way. Our third carrier, the U.S.S. Yorktown wasn't even at full strength, having been damaged severely in battle earlier. The aircraft on Midway were old, and obelete. By all standard expectations, they were negligable.
However, those 100 plus land-based aircraft stationed on Midway Island, obselete as they were--were flown by United States Marines! Marine Aviators. The Japanese forgot about the US Marines, and would pay for their mistake.
Historian John Keegan said that Midway was the most stunning naval victory in history. Clearly, it was an upset. America was expected to be crushed, and swept aside.
Forces Involved: United States
3 fleet carriers
7 heavy cruisers
1 light cruiser
15 destroyers
233 carrier-based aircraft
127 land-based aircraft
16 submarines[1]
Imperial Japanese Navy
1st Carrier Striking Force:
4 fleet carriers
2 battleships
2 heavy cruisers
1 light cruiser
12 destroyers
248 carrier-based aircraft[2]
16 floatplanes
Midway Support Force:
4 heavy cruisers
2 destroyers
12 floatplanes
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Add up your numbers right in your post
US had 3 fleet carriers and the unsinkable USS Midway (Island), 360 US aircraft including land based medium (B26) and heavy bombers (B17) vs 4 Japanese carriers and 248 Japanese aircraft (US had a 50% advantage in aircraft), US had 7 Heavy cruisers vs 2 Japanese Battleships (actually WW1 era battlecruisers) and 2 heavy cruisers, US had 15 destroyers to 12 japanese, and the US had 16 submarines to 0 Japanese. The Japanese carriers were under constant attack between the (rarely reported) land based bombers and the attacks by carrier aircraft which severely hampered their efforts to launch attacks because they were constantly having to rearm and refuel their fighter cover. Midway was also the only recorded use of the B26 Marauder as a torpedo bomber.
The problem is most US historians have repeated the same incorrect information. The Miracle at Midway made a good rah rah story for the home front, and it offered an excuse for the defeat for the Japanese. It remains popular today despite the fact there has been good proof it didn't happen that way. Many historians keep going back to John Ford's propaganda film The Battle of Midway instead of looking at original sources.
Shattered Sword was the first major English language history to include Japanese history and documentation. There are many areas where it was clear that older US histories made assumptions about how the Japanese operated, and they were very wrong assuming they operated like the US. Much of the time line has also been poorly reported, like the sacrifice of torpedo bombers allowing the dive bombers to attack unopposed. In reality the dive bomber attack occurred well after the torpedo bombers attack and their loss played very little if any part in their success. It does however make for a much better story and gives some purpose to their loss to the families so it remains a popular belief.
It is also rarely reported that the Japanese torpedo bombers suffered similar losses to the US. Torpedo bombing was a very dangerous and vulnerable mission even when flown by more modern aircraft and both sides moved away from it after Midway.
The SBD Dauntless dive bomber was likely the finest dive bomber of the war, the Stuka had nothing on it. The US Navy and Marines actually invented dive bombing (first recorded dive bombing attacks were carried out by the USMC in Nicaragua during the 1920s). Ernst Udet became fascinated with the concept after watching a US Navy demonstration in the 1930s, and he brought the idea to Germany (along with 2 Curtiss Hawk II fighters he used to sell the idea).
Quote from: jeff37923;1073045That "sleeping giant" quote was from Admiral Yamamoto, who was against going to war with the USA IIRC.
Also IIRC, the US Navy got very lucky in having a fighter group engage one of the Japanese carriers while the flight deck was jammed with planes being rearmed with bombs. I need to reread that battle history, I've forgotten too much.
Most evidence disputes Yamamoto ever actually making that statement (most attribute it to the film Tora Tora Tora), although it is believed he did more or less believe that.
The deck loaded with fuel and bombs is another one of the myths disproved by looking at actual Japanese operational documentation. It simply couldn't have happened that way, unlike the US Navy who did refuel rearm on deck, the Japanese did all of their work below decks so they would have never have had the deck piled with fuel and ordnance.
Quote from: Toadmaster;1073033The Japanese were outnumbered from the beginning. Their invasion of Midway was planned around a defensive force of around 750 Marines and 50 aircraft. In reality Midway had nearly 2000 Marines and more than 100 aircraft. Then you add in the submarine force, 2 carrier groups and the lack of surprise.
How many soldiers did the Japanese force have?
AFAICS Japan certainly could have got lucky and won the naval Battle of Midway, and I don't see that 2,000 marines would necessarily have stopped them taking the island.
But they were still going to lose the war. The only war Japan could have won against the USA was a limited war, like the 1905 Russia-Japan war, which went off the table with Pearl Harbor. The war Japan could win was one where the USA attacked Japan, with limited support among the US public, and Japan could be presented as the victim not aggressor. The moral level of war is the highest one, for sure.
Greetings!
Well, the actual forces that were able to engage in battle--the forces noted, above--were comparable. The IJN had one more ship. Not engaged though--due to Japanese fuck up--is a considerable force of battleships, etc, including the Yamato. We were not grossly outnumbered, as propaganda claims--but Toad, you claimed that WE outnumbered the Japanese. American forces naval forces did not outnumber the Japanese. At best, we had comparable forces. We did, in fact, have a few more aircraft, the land-based ones--but everything I have read was that they were obselete, and never a major factor, in the primary assault and decisive strikes against the Japanese capital ships.
The book sounds interesting, Toad! I'm looking forward to getting the book for my collection.
However, my original point still stands. Midway was not, like the other battles I mentioned, ever a guaranteed victory. Had we lost at Midway, or Guadalcanal, the Solomon Campaign, or the Coral Sea, we would have been really fucked, you know? As it was, even with victory in those, the Japanese put up a hell of a fight at the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, which came a bit later. In truth, it was a sequential series of all of these battles which together broke the power of the Imperial Japanese Navy, with such cumulative defets being too severe for the Japanese to ever be able to recover from.
I should also note, that our valiant submarine forces--ultimately over 400 submarines--undertook precisely what the Nazis tried to do with Britain. US submarines were--as I recall from this huge book written by a veteran US submarine Commander--responsible for sinking over 60% of all Japanese ships during the war, including annihilating Japan's entire mechant fleet. After several years of unrestricted submarine warfare, Japan was also deeply fucked, as by that time, they were suffering enormous food shortages as well as other supplies, due to the powerful and enduring success of the US submarine forces during the war to that point.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: S'mon;1073050How many soldiers did the Japanese force have?
AFAICS Japan certainly could have got lucky and won the naval Battle of Midway, and I don't see that 2,000 marines would necessarily have stopped them taking the island.
But they were still going to lose the war. The only war Japan could have won against the USA was a limited war, like the 1905 Russia-Japan war, which went off the table with Pearl Harbor. The war Japan could win was one where the USA attacked Japan, with limited support among the US public, and Japan could be presented as the victim not aggressor. The moral level of war is the highest one, for sure.
The Japanese landing force was 5000 men. Wake Island was an unsupported, under strength outpost defended by 450 Marines and 12 aircraft and they held out for 2 weeks against a force 1/2 the size of that sent to Midway (2 aircraft carriers, 2 heavy cruisers and misc smaller vessels, plus a landing force of 2500 infantry).
The Defenders at Midway had 4-5x the number of Marines, 10x the aircraft and much better defensive positions than Wake had available. Midway was also a submarine refueling and rearming base, so there were 19 submarines operating in the area. Midway also had a detatchment of 8 PT boats.
So even lacking the intel scoop that placed 2 US carrier task forces at Midway, taking the island was far from certain and would have been a very bloody ordeal for the Japanese who had a poor record when it came to opposed amphibious landings. Like the Germans when they looked at invading England, the Japanese lacked effective landing craft capable of putting men and equipment on the beach. To give some comparison in US amphibious landings they attempted to provide a landing force approximately 5x the size of the defenders.
It is also unclear what victory would have provided to the Japanese. Midway is a rock in the middle of the Pacific Ocean that would have been very difficult for them to support. Much like what happened in the Aleutian islands (a completely separate operation from Midway, not a diversionary attack has often been claimed). That was an ongoing issue for the Japanese, they seized a lot of ground early in the war, but this added territory provided little material gain, and became a drain on resources (the Dutch East Indies oil being an exception).
Quote from: SHARK;1073054Greetings!
Well, the actual forces that were able to engage in battle--the forces noted, above--were comparable. The IJN had one more ship. Not engaged though--due to Japanese fuck up--is a considerable force of battleships, etc, including the Yamato. We were not grossly outnumbered, as propaganda claims--but Toad, you claimed that WE outnumbered the Japanese. American forces naval forces did not outnumber the Japanese. At best, we had comparable forces. We did, in fact, have a few more aircraft, the land-based ones--but everything I have read was that they were obselete, and never a major factor, in the primary assault and decisive strikes against the Japanese capital ships.
The book sounds interesting, Toad! I'm looking forward to getting the book for my collection.
However, my original point still stands. Midway was not, like the other battles I mentioned, ever a guaranteed victory. Had we lost at Midway, or Guadalcanal, the Solomon Campaign, or the Coral Sea, we would have been really fucked, you know? As it was, even with victory in those, the Japanese put up a hell of a fight at the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, which came a bit later. In truth, it was a sequential series of all of these battles which together broke the power of the Imperial Japanese Navy, with such cumulative defets being too severe for the Japanese to ever be able to recover from.
I should also note, that our valiant submarine forces--ultimately over 400 submarines--undertook precisely what the Nazis tried to do with Britain. US submarines were--as I recall from this huge book written by a veteran US submarine Commander--responsible for sinking over 60% of all Japanese ships during the war, including annihilating Japan's entire mechant fleet. After several years of unrestricted submarine warfare, Japan was also deeply fucked, as by that time, they were suffering enormous food shortages as well as other supplies, due to the powerful and enduring success of the US submarine forces during the war to that point.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
A 50% superiority in aircraft is insignificant in a battle won and lost with air power? Also your numbers don't add up. The forces you yourself posted showed advantage in most cases to the US. Yes the Japanese had a 4th aircraft carrier, but the US had an island with a complement of aircraft comparable to 2 Japanese carriers and it is damn hard to sink an island.
Quote from: Toadmaster;1073055It is also unclear what victory would have provided to the Japanese. Midway is a rock in the middle of the Pacific Ocean that would have been very difficult for them to support. Much like what happened in the Aleutian islands (a completely separate operation from Midway, not a diversionary attack has often been claimed). That was an ongoing issue for the Japanese, they seized a lot of ground early in the war, but this added territory provided little material gain, and became a drain on resources (the Dutch East Indies oil being an exception).
To me this is the big issue.
The Japanese had an effective strategy for defeating the European empires, who were either fighting for survival against Nazi Germany or had been defeated by Nazi Germany. They could drive them from the Pacific and Burma, and make retaking the territory impossible with European resources. But they had no strategy for winning an all-out war against the USA, a Pacific power, and most did not really understand what they were up against. Taking far-flung Pacific territory was just spreading their forces and weakening them, making their defeat easier.
This thread sure has taken an informative turn though to an unexpected topic.
Quote from: CarlD.;1073088This thread sure has taken an informative turn though to an unexpected topic.
Also a more interesting topic.
Quote from: Dimitrios;1073090Also a more interesting topic.
My eyes started to glaze over when people started listing the numbers and types of ships involved in the pacific theater. I'm sure it's interesting to some people, otherwise they wouldn't post it! But man, I couldn't care less if there were 12 or 13 destroyers floating around Midway at X time. But, threads have tangents, and I don't bitch about it, I just skip those posts.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1073096My eyes started to glaze over when people started listing the numbers and types of ships involved in the pacific theater. I'm sure it's interesting to some people, otherwise they wouldn't post it! But man, I couldn't care less if there were 12 or 13 destroyers floating around Midway at X time. But, threads have tangents, and I don't bitch about it, I just skip those posts.
Meh. If it's a choice between the pathetic dude who was the subject of the first post in this thread, or nit picking details about the battle of Midway...bring on the nit picking details I say!
Partly just thinking out loud, I think the topic trail was:
- harassment of women on the Internet (referred to in the OP)
- opposition and harassment of conservative women Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin
- Malkin's attitudes on Japanese-American internment as motivation for opposition
- justifications of Japanese-American internment
- the threat of Japanese victory in WWII
Quote from: jhkim;1073105- Malkin's attitudes on Japanese-American internment as motivation for opposition
That one was my fault.
Quote from: kythri;1072876Sup, girl?
Quote from: jhkim;1072878So, are you going to kiss tenbones? I'm asking for him to avoid awkwardness, because I know how shy he can be.
Quote from: tenbones;1072996Holy shit. I KNEW IT
Where do I file my #metoo outrage? Twitter?
Quote from: Brad;1073115Where do I file my #metoo outrage? Twitter?
That's passe now. I recommend putting it on a usenet to make sure it trends with the appropriate hipster crowd.
Quote from: Brad;1073115Where do I file my #metoo outrage? Twitter?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ujIP-4Nu33Q
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072945...hmm, does that mean if we truly are becoming a more melting pot society, "And who Don't Look Like Us," is becoming a smaller and smaller group?
The exact opposite is happening.
Everyone is dividing into tighter identity factions so the number of "those who are NOT us" only gets bigger.
TL:DR Japanese could have won Midway but it wouldn't have mattered in the long run.
Long version:
Just to add to the Midway info - from what I've read, Midway wasn't a "miracle", it was a well-planned ambush of the Japanese. The Japanese didn't do themselves any favours, though. Their wargame of the battle had one of their own carriers sunk early on. This was "reversed" by the umpires in charge. The Japanese plan was about as complicated as it could be, several separate fleets unable to give each other cover if required. They had a commander who was confused on the day: His orders were to suppress the Midway defences and then be ready to destroy the Americans when they rushed to defend the island. Unfortunately his initial attack failed to suppress the island, and he was caught in two minds whether he should attack Midway Island again, or keep his bombers ready for when the American carriers were found. By the time he made up his mind (to attack Midway) events overtook him.
And Midway was way past what the Japanese could comfortably support. The invasion attempt was made because it was something that the Americans would have to fight for, and it would not require much in the way of army co-operation (the army refused to give much help, they were busy in China).
On the other hand, the American victory was not pre-ordained. Although they knew the Japanese target (Midway) they did not know exactly where or when the attack would come, they only had reasonable guesses. The land-based aircraft were not good at hitting moving ships. Their attack was uncoordinated with the fleet aircraft, and the attacks from the carriers went in piecemeal. The final (devastating) attack only went in because the strike force decided (on a hunch) to follow a lone destroyer which was hurrying to catch up with the fleet. Finally, the attack was as devastating as it was because the Japanese carrier decks were full of rearming and refuelling aircraft. Had the attack come an hour earlier of later, things might well have been different.
So it was quite possible for the Japanese to have sunk the American carriers and not lost all theirs.
However, this would not have really affected the long-term strategic balance. The Japanese could not replace their lost pilots, let alone their lost carriers. The American were building a dozen or more fleet carriers and had enough pilots to man them when they came on line. Even if the Japanese won Midway and a following battle, attrition would have reduced their carrier fleet to uselessness.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1073169The exact opposite is happening.
Everyone is dividing into tighter identity factions so the number of "those who are NOT us" only gets bigger.
I do see considerably more balkanization than I remember, but I have no data to say whether or not that's my perception and biases or objective reality.
Quote from: jhkim;1073105Partly just thinking out loud, I think the topic trail was:
- harassment of women on the Internet (referred to in the OP)
- opposition and harassment of conservative women Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin
- Malkin's attitudes on Japanese-American internment as motivation for opposition
- justifications of Japanese-American internment
- the threat of Japanese victory in WWII
It hasn't gotten to Hitler yet.
Seeing as this is International Women's Day, its seemed appropriate to discuss this question and it does fit the tone of the thread. Do you feel the there is a "War on Men" and/or that the minority Radical Feminist idea that its not female equality but female superiority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_and_equality#Superiority) that is becoming increasingly mainstream and advocated.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/06/obama-women-superior-men-washing-up-driving-patriarchy
http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2009/07/05/why-i-hate-men-part-1-and-then-it-hit-me/
http://www.womenagainstmen.com/media/feminism-is-a-hate-group.html
Personally, I think this is the an extreme mouthing off on the internet but it does indicate possible future social trends and changes so its worth some discussion (There's always been a sort of 'competition' between the boys and girls but like so many other things its become Serious Business in our age of Culture Wars)As this board is home to some extreme opinions (IMO) but pretty open talk about them (In all honesty, I don't think this thread would last long in Tangency) I hoped this might be productive or at least interesting.
Quote from: CarlD.;1078206Seeing as this is International Women's Day, its seemed appropriate to discuss this question and it does fit the tone of the thread. Do you feel the there is a "War on Men" and/or that the minority Radical Feminist idea that its not female equality but female superiority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_and_equality#Superiority) that is becoming increasingly mainstream and advocated.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/06/obama-women-superior-men-washing-up-driving-patriarchy
http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2009/07/05/why-i-hate-men-part-1-and-then-it-hit-me/
http://www.womenagainstmen.com/media/feminism-is-a-hate-group.html
Personally, I think this is the an extreme mouthing off on the internet but it does indicate possible future social trends and changes so its worth some discussion (There's always been a sort of 'competition' between the boys and girls but like so many other things its become Serious Business in our age of Culture Wars)As this board is home to some extreme opinions (IMO) but pretty open talk about them (In all honesty, I don't think this thread would last long in Tangency) I hoped this might be productive or at least interesting.
I think the "war of the sexes" is as old as humans.
I think it became particularly ideological with the rise of modern feminism. (Specifiying women and men as separate "classes", and creating an oppressor/oppressed narrative)
People like to use hyperbole and analogy, which I think dilutes the discussion.
I think there's some shadow of a point in the idea of feminism, but it's seriously corrupted by the oppressor/oppressed idea, which ignores or downplays other factors between the sexes.
So, to answer your question, I think there's a thread of female superiority running through feminism, we can see that in the activism against "toxic masculinity" (IE any masculinity that isn't approved by feminism) and the demonizing of male sexuality. "Male gaze", etc. For two examples.
Women should be free to do whatever they want with their lives, but should also accept consummate responsibility for their decisions, which is one of the main talking points of the Men's Rights Movement.
Some random thoughts off the top of my head.
I'm a man.
I don't feel that there is a war on men.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078260I'm a man.
I don't feel that there is a war on men.
There are certainly double standards, albeit in both directions
Quote from: CarlD.;1078206Seeing as this is International Women's Day, its seemed appropriate to discuss this question and it does fit the tone of the thread. Do you feel the there is a "War on Men" and/or that the minority Radical Feminist idea that its not female equality but female superiority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_and_equality#Superiority) that is becoming increasingly mainstream and advocated.
Yeah there is a war on men but the main problem is that science is on mens side. 200,000 years of evolution does not go away because someones feelings are hurt.
Quote from: Shasarak;1078287Yeah there is a war on men but the main problem is that science is on mens side.
Science may be, but nature isn't - most men historically have often failed to reproduce, and generally been treated as disposable. "All Men Matter" is a pretty recent development, and we seem to be going back to the earlier norm of "All Women Matter - Plus A Few Men".
I think "All Men Matter" creates much more pleasant societies for everyone (by giving all men a stake in the society's future), so it's definitely a shame.
Quote from: S'mon;1078313Science may be, but nature isn't - most men historically have often failed to reproduce.
True, most men died out when they were kids which is why 200,000 years of evolution works generally.
Feminism is destroying itself and alienating women. Its amazing how all those promoting virulent man-hate forgot that many women love their husbands, brothers, fathers and sons. And its equally amazing how these "intersectionist" clowns demanding all feminists accept trannies as women have forgotten that many feminists joined feminist groups to promote the concerns of fellow women, not helping dudes with tits.
I suspect feminism is going to splinter. The MSM loves the man-haters and heavily promotes that agenda (aka, watch most any TV commercial or sitcom), but it doesn't match what the majority women actually want in their real life. Polls show women are getting less happy, not more. And as more men check out from the rat race and married life, that unhappiness factor will grow further.
But fuck it. Sexbots are coming and will solve everything for everybody. Men won't need women and women won't need men. Everyone will be equally screwing their perfect toasters.
I think to a large degree, Spinachat is right. Feminism is showing signs of splintering, largely due to intersectionality driving wedges between otherwise likeminded women. That said, there is a war on men, but it is already largely lost as it is instantiated in law. Without changes to family courts and laws concerning divorce, alimony and child custody, and selective service. Men have been on the losing end of that battle for some time now and are only now starting to make inroads to change it all.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1078327Feminism is destroying itself and alienating women. Its amazing how all those promoting virulent man-hate forgot that many women love their husbands, brothers, fathers and sons. And its equally amazing how these "intersectionist" clowns demanding all feminists accept trannies as women have forgotten that many feminists joined feminist groups to promote the concerns of fellow women, not helping dudes with tits.
I suspect feminism is going to splinter. The MSM loves the man-haters and heavily promotes that agenda (aka, watch most any TV commercial or sitcom), but it doesn't match what the majority women actually want in their real life. Polls show women are getting less happy, not more. And as more men check out from the rat race and married life, that unhappiness factor will grow further.
But fuck it. Sexbots are coming and will solve everything for everybody. Men won't need women and women won't need men. Everyone will be equally screwing their perfect toasters.
Sexbots, eh, it might work for guys who actually don't like women. I think that what we need more is to emphasize male pride and self-respect again. How about men holding their ground (as men) for once? I haven't seen that in a couple of decades. It might actually get us more respect from the women too.
All this talk about MGTOW and "incels". WTF? Or what about the hypocrisy of men nervously clapping along while at last years Oscars there was one anti-men joke after another? It seemed particularly hypocritical coming from Jimmy Kimmel, who used to do puns where women would put their hands in his pants. It would have been funnier, given the situation and all, if we were simultaneously able to take jokes at the cost of women, but it seems like we can't (individual women can, but not the media and certainly not the Oscars, I would have loved to see a "women can't drive" joke thrown into that mix just to see the reaction).
Speaking of sex: Did you guys notice that Playboy corporation went from having "entertainment for men" as their slogan to "entertainment for all"? Because surely men can't even have that anymore, a magazine with relatively tasteful nude pictures of women. (apparently magazines still sell to a certain degree, and there are always several shelves in the store with women's magazines, but hardly any for men). Have guys just caved in and accepted that "yes, sorry, we're a bunch of losers"? If men like non-rapey, tasteful, pictures of nude women (which they generally do), how about owning it? Oh, and one thing that I noticed when I saw the old "Beverly Hills Cop" movie again a while back. Eddie Murphy's character likes to go to strip clubs. That's right, the
HERO likes to go to strip clubs. Can you even imagine that today? If you like this sort of thing (or similarly manly, harmless, "non-feminist" things), how about going "yeah, I'm a good guy, I work hard, I don't treat people like shit, and I also enjoy them naked girls, if you don't like it then f**k off!"
OK rant over.
Quote from: shuddemell;1078335I think to a large degree, Spinachat is right. Feminism is showing signs of splintering, largely due to intersectionality driving wedges between otherwise likeminded women. That said, there is a war on men, but it is already largely lost as it is instantiated in law. Without changes to family courts and laws concerning divorce, alimony and child custody, and selective service. Men have been on the losing end of that battle for some time now and are only now starting to make inroads to change it all.
There was a recent ruling against the Selective Service rules so we'll almost certainly see a change to that law in the coming years. Unless the Supreme Court is willing to revisit their old ruling, there's almost no way we won't see a change forcing women to enroll soon.
Quote from: Brand55;1078364There was a recent ruling against the Selective Service rules so we'll almost certainly see a change to that law in the coming years. Unless the Supreme Court is willing to revisit their old ruling, there's almost no way we won't see a change forcing women to enroll soon.
We are blessed to live in a time in the west where service in the military is mostly a choice and where that service is comparatively light on casualties. I don't think women in the military will ever be as impactful on women as it has been on men. We can include women in selective service, and require them to fight on the front lines, but it's not like we currently have a Vietnam or Korea where they'll be mutilated or killed.
Quote from: Trond;1078357Sexbots, eh, it might work for guys who actually don't like women.
Sexbots will succeed because like porn, it sells a uncomplicated fantasy. The most wonderful human relationship has its bad days. The sexbot won't have bad days, not even bad hair days. And it will cook and clean too.
Quote from: Trond;1078357I think that what we need more is to emphasize male pride and self-respect again. How about men holding their ground (as men) for once? I haven't seen that in a couple of decades. It might actually get us more respect from the women too.
That only works on an individual level. I can't see it happening on any organized level.
Quote from: Trond;1078357All this talk about MGTOW and "incels". WTF?
Too very different groups.
MGTOW - Men Going Their Own Way does not have to include celibacy, but often does. It can even include men in relationships who just checked out of the feminized, anti-male culture.
INCEL - Involuntary Celibates, are guys who never learned how to get nookie and blame women for it. I'd feel bad for them, except too much of their online presence involves an idiotic level of hate against women based on listening to the MSM and not talking to actual women. Wanna hate nasty bitches? Sure, no problem. Want to declare every woman is a nasty bitch? That's too dumb for the gene pool.
Quote from: Trond;1078357Or what about the hypocrisy of men nervously clapping along while at last years Oscars there was one anti-men joke after another?
Actors are puppets and whores.
Actocracy - rule by actors - seems pretty synonymous with Kakistocracy. :)
Quote from: Spinachcat;1078438Sexbots will succeed because like porn, it sells a uncomplicated fantasy. The most wonderful human relationship has its bad days. The sexbot won't have bad days, not even bad hair days. And it will cook and clean too.
Don't hold your breath unless you're prepared to pay an arm and a leg for something only vaguely resembling a sex partner. I remember they announced that they had invented mechanical honey bees, but in reality they weren't even close :D. Humans are a bit more tricky. Besides, all sorts of machines can have bad days. Time for a rather embarrassing tech support phone call. If relationships get tiring I think I'd rather spend money on a call girl actually. The laws do have some loopholes (but it should be legal, seriously, look at what they are hired to do in porn). I actually like women's chit-chat, but I don't think Siri would do the trick.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1078438Sexbots will succeed because like porn, it sells a uncomplicated fantasy. The most wonderful human relationship has its bad days. The sexbot won't have bad days, not even bad hair days. And it will cook and clean too.
Don't hold your breath unless you're prepared to pay an arm and a leg for something only vaguely resembling a sex partner. I remember they announced that they had invented mechanical honey bees, but in reality they weren't even close :D. Humans are a bit more tricky. Besides, all sorts of machines can have bad days. Time for a rather embarrassing tech support phone call. If relationships get tiring I think I'd rather spend money on a call girl actually. The laws do have some loopholes (but it should be legal, seriously, look at what they are hired to do in porn). I actually like women's chit-chat, but I don't think Siri would do the trick.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1078438The sexbot won't have bad days, not even bad hair days.
Bullshit. I have a laptop and wifi-enabled printer. They have good days and bad days. On the bad days they inexplicably stop communicating. Even on good days, I get the cold shoulder from the laptop while I have to "wait for updates" - some of which take multiple passes before they sink in. Skynet kills us not all at once with bombs and bullets, but minute by minute of waiting through loading bars and updates. I'd imagine sexbots will have the same flaws "You want to fuck? Sorry, but I have an update right now..."
A sexbot can't love you.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1078493A sexbot can't love you.
Dont be so racist against Sexbots! I am sure that their love algorithms will get better and better over time ;0)
All these talk about Sexbots who knew that we would actually see what we saw int the Cherry 2000 movie become a reality.
Quote from: sureshot;1078498All these talk about Sexbots who knew that we would actually see what we saw int the Cherry 2000 movie become a reality.
Pfft. :D What we have are elaborate rubber dolls with vibrators and tape recorders built in. None of them can do the very basic of tasks, like wash out their crevices after use, much less carry on a coherent conversation or bring you a beer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cN8sJz50Ng
Quote from: Trond;1078357Sexbots, eh, it might work for guys who actually don't like women. I think that what we need more is to emphasize male pride and self-respect again. How about men holding their ground (as men) for once? I haven't seen that in a couple of decades. It might actually get us more respect from the women too.
All this talk about MGTOW and "incels". WTF? Or what about the hypocrisy of men nervously clapping along while at last years Oscars there was one anti-men joke after another? It seemed particularly hypocritical coming from Jimmy Kimmel, who used to do puns where women would put their hands in his pants. It would have been funnier, given the situation and all, if we were simultaneously able to take jokes at the cost of women, but it seems like we can't (individual women can, but not the media and certainly not the Oscars, I would have loved to see a "women can't drive" joke thrown into that mix just to see the reaction).
Speaking of sex: Did you guys notice that Playboy corporation went from having "entertainment for men" as their slogan to "entertainment for all"? Because surely men can't even have that anymore, a magazine with relatively tasteful nude pictures of women. (apparently magazines still sell to a certain degree, and there are always several shelves in the store with women's magazines, but hardly any for men). Have guys just caved in and accepted that "yes, sorry, we're a bunch of losers"? If men like non-rapey, tasteful, pictures of nude women (which they generally do), how about owning it? Oh, and one thing that I noticed when I saw the old "Beverly Hills Cop" movie again a while back. Eddie Murphy's character likes to go to strip clubs. That's right, the HERO likes to go to strip clubs. Can you even imagine that today? If you like this sort of thing (or similarly manly, harmless, "non-feminist" things), how about going "yeah, I'm a good guy, I work hard, I don't treat people like shit, and I also enjoy them naked girls, if you don't like it then f**k off!"
OK rant over.
Greetings!
Certainly, Trond! Our society has become swamped with Feminism, while embracing Misandry at every opportunity. It can seem like there is a "War on Men"--men in general, but White Men in particular. Just think about how family law, courts, judges, lawyers, and divorce courts in particular are stacked against men. Men *routinely* get destroyed in divorce courts. Their chidren are taken away, the men are thrown out of their homes, and the men are forced to pay enormously in alimony, and supposed "Child Support." Strangely, the divorced women are then getting fucked silly by their new stable of boyfriends, and going on single mommy cruises with their cock-carrasel riding girlfriends, driving new SUV's, going out partying every weekend--while the divorced husband has to work two jobs, comes home exhausted to a darkened, tiny apartment in the shitty part of town. He's lost his family, his children, his wife, and his home; his whole life that he has worked hard to build for many years, even *decades*--is, in a matter of a few months, all taken from him. All because his ex-wife said she was "Unhappy" after 10, 15, 20 years or more of marriage--and he also learns along the way, that for the last 18 months to 2 years of their marriage, his wife who had told him she was willing to go to counseling, and work on their marriage--was secretly fucking a co-worker from her job for all of that time.
Now, the boyfriend gets to fuck his ex-wife, in his old house, and having her making *him* dinner, while he raises his children. And the ex-wife's lifestyle is sweet and delicious, with her also taking fun trips with the children and her boyfriend--all helped along and paid for by the divorced ex-husband.
The divorced ex-husband drinks himself into a stupor for several weeks, months, or even a few years, as his life becomes harder and harder with each passing month; his life becomes harsh and dark, and hopeless.
Then he places his gun to his head, and shoots himself in a final act of doomed hopelessness and despondancy.
Men's drug abuse and alcohol abuse has gone way up, as have suicide rates among men, including men in the age ranges of 40 to 60--especially older White Men.
And we wonder WHY?
Hypergamy is very real, and coupled with aggressive Feminism, our social landscape and sexual relations, especially *marriage*--is being devastated. Alas, even women are more *unhappy* than ever before. They shriek and cry "Where have all the good men gone?" The irony entirely escapes them. As the divorced women spend the last few years before they hit the wall, or begin to cross over it, the stable of young studs fucking them senseless becomes fewer and fewer. More and more men merely want to pump and dump them. Few men (that the women deeply desire and are attracted to)--want a used up, divorced skank with three brats from another man, meanwhile she's hit the wall, become a bloated land whale, chopped her hir short, and gotten plastered with fresh new tattoos. As she ages into her late 30's, 40's and even 50's, she increasingly wonders what happened to the promised land of feminist bliss as a newly divorced, powerful, strong single mommy? Increasingly, she only has her cats to keep her company. She laments loudly and constantly, why don't the good men want her?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!
Playboy is caving in to the new social mantra. Sad, too. But it is going the way everything that has been for MEN. Men can't have anything all-male. Nothing can be there to cater to men--the women never want that. And men in our society continue to bend over and let women rule them like the spineless cucks they are. Every group of years passes, with greater acceleration, our society is rotting and corrupting at a quickened pace. With society being filled by more and more feminized, metrosexual soyboys and white-knight simpering cucks, the more fevered and desperate the women become in their biologically-driven hind brain to breed with a truly masculine, dominant male--even if such has to be with increasingly social outliers, young boys, thugs, and criminals--or poaching other women's masculine husbands, thusly creating more drama and chaos, as well as more divorces and broken homes. Along the way, as her eggs are drying up, they frantically seek to breed a few more times. They can't get a good man, so they spread their legs for whatever stud thug comes along, and is eager to bend her ass over and give it to her. Hence, more illegitimate children, born into a fatherless home, and raised by a strong, independent, single mommy.
Yay Us! All because her "lazy", bastard ex-husband only made 60K a year, or didn't have enough status, or didn't do the housework to her liking, or she just became "bored" and then rapidly changing to UNHAPPY, and needed to "Find Herself."
Men need to wake the fuck up, an start standing up to society, and to women in particular, and refuse to be feminized cucks. Stop whining and begging for a woman's fucking approval. Stop centering their entire fucking lives around serving and pleasing a woman. Do this, do that, don't do this, stop doing that. The lists are endless. And if you can't change, or won't change, or change fast enough, according to HER timetable--guess what that light at the end of tunnel of your relationship is? No, it isn't the freedom and bliss of daylight. LOL. It is an oncoming train of divorce, and financial, emotional, and social ruin. Men are hopefully increasingly becoming aware that for millions of men, for years and years, you are manipulated like that rat on a wheel, in the big plastic yellow rat house thing. Men are prodded onto that wheel, always working, always running, always seeking to please the woman, and make her "happy." No matter how fast they run, they only realise too late when they are handed the divorce papers, that they were running and running, and getting nowhere.
There's something terribly unequal, unfair, and even monstrous about how relationships with women, and especially marriage, is run and organized in our society.
More men should ask themselves, "How would I feel if any of my close men friends *talked to me* or *treated me* the way the wife does?" A frequent answer might likely be, "Well, they don't treat me the way she treats me!" Well, if men wouldn't accept their men friends talking to them with disrespect, treating them terribly--why do they put up with it from their wife, the woman that claims to love them! The woman that claims to be their *best friend*?
More and more things that men everywhere in our society should be thinking about, critically, with a newfound attention and purpose.
Rant on, brother!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
My wife is a feminist and she has a father a brother and a husband that she loves.
I'm a feminist and I'm a man - I have male friends, colleagues, brothers, a father, and positive role-models in my life. I'm a member of a men's only fraternal order.
There may be people that tell you 'feminism is this' or 'feminism is that', but any group is going to attract a fringe and you can be a member of that group and assert what you believe.
I believe that feminism is the radical notion that women are equal. Full stop. That's why I'm a feminist.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078598I believe that feminism is the radical notion that women are equal. Full stop. That's why I'm a feminist.
How do you feel about the activism that prominent feminist organizations, like NOW have done? Specifically, I'm talking about their activism against assumed shared parenting (https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/21752-karen-decrow-last-now-president-to-support-shared-parenting-dies).
How do you feel about the feminist Duluth model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model) of domestic violence that assumes men are the perpetrators.
And how do you feel about the feminist model of patriarchy theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy)?
Personally, I am not a feminist, because prominent, mainstream feminism is never just "the radical notion that women are equal. Full stop." There's all kinds of ideological baggage that comes with it. Baggage that makes feminism come across as man hating, and why most people do not consider themselves feminists (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html).
I am a big believer in treating everyone and anyone equally. With jobs being given only for the right person who has the skills, knowledge and experience to do it. I don't need any ideology to tell me how to behave or treat others properly and with respect.
Feminism has become a nearly useless term that can extend from 'the right not to be killed or mutilated at birth' to 'the right to kill or mutilate up to the point of birth.'
Speaking of feminism, I can understand that some people still like the term (I believe Steven Pinker still counts himself among them) but something went terribly wrong with it a long time ago. Not sure when, some say 3rd wave, but I think before that, since I rarely agree with some of the biggest names from the 70s (like Gloria Steinem). It was probably gradual. But today, something is clearly amiss. In my home country, every time someone started with "as a feminist....." I knew that it was bad news. They would march against the most inane things (sexy pics in magazines, eeep!) while guys were STILL forced to join the army simply for being guys.
Anyway we are not the only ones who have noticed. For example:
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi2.wp.com%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F03%2Fcharen_book_announcement.jpg%3Ffit%3D789%252C460%26ssl%3D1&f=1)
Quote from: Trond;1078615Speaking of feminism, I can understand that some people still like the term (I believe Steven Pinker still counts himself among them) but something went terribly wrong with it a long time ago. Not sure when, some say 3rd wave, but I think before that, since I rarely agree with some of the biggest names from the 70s (like Gloria Steinem). It was probably gradual. But today, something is clearly amiss. In my home country, every time someone started with "as a feminist....." I knew that it was bad news. They would march against the most inane things (sexy pics in magazines, eeep!) while guys were STILL forced to join the army simply for being guys.
Anyway we are not the only ones who have noticed. For example:
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi2.wp.com%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F03%2Fcharen_book_announcement.jpg%3Ffit%3D789%252C460%26ssl%3D1&f=1)
Christina Hoff Sommers has a book, "Who stole feminism?". Also see, Erin Pizzey's "This way to the revolution".
Personally, I think feminism has always been wrong, since the term was coined by Charles Fourier. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fourier) Yes kids, feminism was "invented" by a man. The idea that women should be equal to men has, AFAICT, always been tinged with sexism, IE men oppress women.
Quote from: deadDMwalkingI believe that feminism is the radical notion that women are equal. Full stop. That's why I'm a feminist.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1078603How do you feel about the activism that prominent feminist organizations, like NOW have done? Specifically, I'm talking about their activism against assumed shared parenting (https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/21752-karen-decrow-last-now-president-to-support-shared-parenting-dies).
How do you feel about the feminist Duluth model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model) of domestic violence that assumes men are the perpetrators.
And how do you feel about the feminist model of patriarchy theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy)?
Personally, I am not a feminist, because prominent, mainstream feminism is never just "the radical notion that women are equal. Full stop." There's all kinds of ideological baggage that comes with it. Baggage that makes feminism come across as man hating, and why most people do not consider themselves feminists (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html).
My perception is that when talking about women in the workplace and women in the military, anti-feminists point out how women are geared more towards child care, and are less violent than men. However, when talking about child custody and domestic violence, anti-feminists reverse and preach how women and men are the same - that women have no advantage in child care, and that they are just as violent as men.
I find it believable that there is a bias against fathers in divorce courts for child custody. However, ultimately the courts should choose in favor of what is best for the child. Often, more custody with the mother is a better choice - and mandating 50% custody to the father regardless of quality of parenting makes no more sense than mandating equal pay for a woman worker regardless of the work done. There are many cases where women are discriminated against as workers, and where men are discriminated against as care-takers. But it's not the whole story.
For both of these situations, we need to both reduce bias among bosses/judges, and help people adapt to non-stereotypical roles. From my view, it seems to me that portraying fathers as nurturing child-carers equal to mothers is more of a liberal and feminist thing than a conservative thing.
Quote from: jhkim;1078632My perception is that when talking about women in the workplace and women in the military, anti-feminists point out how women are geared more towards child care, and are less violent than men. However, when talking about child custody and domestic violence, anti-feminists reverse and preach how women and men are the same - that women have no advantage in child care, and that they are just as violent as men.
I can see how that could be your perception. In discussing feminism topics such as these, there are a couple of important points to keep in mind.
Regarding the military, I don't think I've seen the argument that women are less violent than men. (If it's been made, I haven't seen it.) The argument I have seen anti-feminists make is that women are, on average, not as physically strong as men, and this is important for a physically demanding job. Another point made is that men's innate and culturally enforced chivalry may make fighting with women problematic.
My personal opinion is that if a woman wants to get shot in the face and killed or disfigured, suffer
real mentally crippling PTSD, and miss out on huge chunks of time with her spouse and children due to deployment, possibly leading to divorce, well they should go for it. But I seriously doubt that sexism can really be overcome. If a war broke out with a real possibility that America could be defeated, I think women and men would revert to sexist roles. And this would probably be a good thing, in the practical, survival of the country sense.
Regarding DV and child care, it is important to realize that women are human beings, capable of cruelty and violence, both physical and psychological abuse. All of the anti-feminists I have listened to on the topic agree that there is a gendered expression of such violence. It's one of the big MRA talking points that women have an empathy advantage re- being perceived as victims of men, versus men being perceived as victims of women. This is probably the most aggresious thing that feminism has done, with the aforementioned Duluth model, politicizing the way we handled domestic violence, erasing male victims and preventing women perpetrators from getting the help they needed. There is literal blood on the hands of feminists who participated in this.
http://www.academia.edu/33839193/Thirty_Years_of_Denying_the_Evidence_on_Gender_Symmetry_in_Partner_Violence_Implications_for_Prevention_and_Treatment
QuoteI find it believable that there is a bias against fathers in divorce courts for child custody. However, ultimately the courts should choose in favor of what is best for the child. Often, more custody with the mother is a better choice - and mandating 50% custody to the father regardless of quality of parenting makes no more sense than mandating equal pay for a woman worker regardless of the work done. There are many cases where women are discriminated against as workers, and where men are discriminated against as care-takers. But it's not the whole story.
For both of these situations, we need to both reduce bias among bosses/judges, and help people adapt to non-stereotypical roles. From my view, it seems to me that portraying fathers as nurturing child-carers equal to mothers is more of a liberal and feminist thing than a conservative thing.
I mostly agree. I think the separating couple should decide between themselves what setup works best for them and their children. A judge should only be involved when it becomes a dispute, and that judge should not default to giving the mother custody, but make a decision in the best interests of the child.
Quote from: jhkim;1078632However, when talking about child custody and domestic violence, anti-feminists reverse and preach how women and men are the same - that women have no advantage in child care, and that they are just as violent as men.
My impression is that it changes over time - mothers are more important early on, and fathers are more important later on. Teenagers seem to need fathers more, whereas infants seem to need mothers more.
Quote from: S'mon;1078641My impression is that it changes over time - mothers are more important early on, and fathers are more important later on. Teenagers seem to need fathers more, whereas infants seem to need mothers more.
I think both are important, and that a family should only get divorced in cases of serious/serial abuse. Before children, I don't care what two married people do, but once kids enter the scene, people need to think about their kids and the impact they have on them.
Quote from: jhkim;1078632My perception is that when talking about women in the workplace and women in the military, anti-feminists point out how women are geared more towards child care, and are less violent than men. However, when talking about child custody and domestic violence, anti-feminists reverse and preach how women and men are the same - that women have no advantage in child care, and that they are just as violent as men.
That is kinda true. Both sides claim to be more for equality, but self-contradictions abound. Feminists also seem to want women to be protected from serious things, such as violence, and sometimes even the smallest things, like open speech about sex differences and jokes about women. But women are also strong, capable, and don't need men to protect them, somehow. Women are sometimes even seen as better at virtually everything, better leaders, and more intelligent than men (this is no exaggeration, I have been told this both to my face, and a feminist said the same thing on KPCC radio). This has been emphasized so much, that when I asked a feminist of this ilk how women ever came to be of low social status in any society, she came up with nothing. I suggested that men were naturally better at fighting, since that would immediately put women at a disadvantage if a man wanted to, but this caused just a lot of "but" and "however". In the debates we had in Norway, women were both not supposed to take care of kids, AND supposed to take care of kids when that suited better (when the argument for female military service came up) in this case I know for a fact that it was proposed by literally the same people. We (including women) seem to be unable to decide if women are strong and powerful or fragile wallflowers.
Further, gender is apparently a social construct, but LGBT people usually say that they are born that way.
Quote from: jhkimMy perception is that when talking about women in the workplace and women in the military, anti-feminists point out how women are geared more towards child care, and are less violent than men. However, when talking about child custody and domestic violence, anti-feminists reverse and preach how women and men are the same - that women have no advantage in child care, and that they are just as violent as men.
Quote from: Trond;1078650That is kinda true. Both sides claim to be more for equality, but self-contradictions abound. Feminists also seem to want women to be protected from serious things, such as violence, and sometimes even the smallest things, like open speech about sex differences and jokes about women. But women are also strong, capable, and don't need men to protect them, somehow. Women are sometimes even seen as better at virtually everything, better leaders, and more intelligent than men (this is no exaggeration, I have been told this both to my face, and a feminist said the same thing on KPCC radio).
Fair enough. Another way of saying this is that people on either side are often biased, which is certainly true. I've also seen the opposite argued - that when pointed out how men politicians and CEOs outnumber women, it's because men are better leaders. It's pretty hard to measure this objectively, as far as pure genetic potential of men vs women.
Quote from: jhkimHowever, when talking about child custody and domestic violence, anti-feminists reverse and preach how women and men are the same - that women have no advantage in child care, and that they are just as violent as men.
Quote from: S'mon;1078641My impression is that it changes over time - mothers are more important early on, and fathers are more important later on. Teenagers seem to need fathers more, whereas infants seem to need mothers more.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1078643I think both are important, and that a family should only get divorced in cases of serious/serial abuse. Before children, I don't care what two married people do, but once kids enter the scene, people need to think about their kids and the impact they have on them.
As far as mothers vs fathers... Certainly having two parents who love each other throughout childhood is an ideal. Mothers obviously have extra importance during nursing, but other than that, I don't see definite importance with age.
As far as divorce, I think kids can have problems from being in households where the parents don't want to be together. I'm divorced myself, and I cooperated well with my ex-wife when she left. I think it was actually better for my son after we split, than before separation when we were in conflict.
What really bugs me is parents who fight in front of and/or about their kids (verbally or physically). This can be fighting over divorce, or fighting within a marriage. Either way it upsets kids and gives really bad lessons. There are good ways to model conflict and resolution for kids, but too many relationships don't do that.
Quote from: jhkim;1078661As far as mothers vs fathers... Certainly having two parents who love each other throughout childhood is an ideal. Mothers obviously have extra importance during nursing, but other than that, I don't see definite importance with age.
As far as divorce, I think kids can have problems from being in households where the parents don't want to be together. I'm divorced myself, and I cooperated well with my ex-wife when she left. I think it was actually better for my son after we split, than before separation when we were in conflict.
I won't cast judement on your specific situation.
QuoteWhat really bugs me is parents who fight in front of and/or about their kids (verbally or physically). This can be fighting over divorce, or fighting within a marriage. Either way it upsets kids and gives really bad lessons. There are good ways to model conflict and resolution for kids, but too many relationships don't do that.
This I very much agree with. Kids may not listen to what their parents say, but they damn well pay attention to what their parents do.
It's is unquestionably true that women have been treated as varying degrees of chattel in every culture that has existed throughout history since the dawn of time... except one. Given that one civilization, the West, that is the one and only that has given them full equality to men (among countless other benefits to women and humankind in general that NO OTHER CIVILIZATION EVER has been able to produce), the fact that a significant proportion of women would now be seemingly determined to undo and destroy the ideological principles of human liberties that allowed that equality to exist in the first place, and replace it with an arbitrary and utterly nihilistic concept of semantic might-makes-right (which can SO easily turn into physical might-makes-right, which they ALSO seem to want to inflict on men) is the very definition of insanity.
Because ladies, if you take away the philosophical foundations for the ONE AND ONLY society that ever gave you freedom and equality, the end result isn't going to be "feminist-run soviet utopia", it's going to be going back to being legally beaten by the husband you're forced to marry until you make him the right sandwich.
That's the Historical Default State. The West you hate so very much? It IS the nearest thing that ever existed to Utopia for women, the absolutely unique and exceptional thing you should be willing to give your life to defend because any alternative for you is an absolute living nightmare by comparison.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1078774It's is unquestionably true that women have been treated as varying degrees of chattel in every culture that has existed throughout history since the dawn of time... except one.
*Facepalm* Both women and men were treated as chattel slaves in the west.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1078782*Facepalm* Both women and men were treated as chattel slaves in the west.
Greetings!
Initially, yes, Ratman. However, it is only true in Western Civilization that rights for both men and women, and especially women, have expanded in a progressive manner through the years. Other societies have never been close to the progressive, institutionalized freedoms and rights as promulgated by Western Civilization.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Ratman_tf*Facepalm* Both women and men were treated as chattel slaves in the west.
Quote from: SHARK;1078787Initially, yes, Ratman. However, it is only true in Western Civilization that rights for both men and women, and especially women, have expanded in a progressive manner through the years. Other societies have never been close to the progressive, institutionalized freedoms and rights as promulgated by Western Civilization.
I would certainly give credit to Western civilization, which has many good points - but it is rampant ignorance to say that the West is the only place where rights made progress. For example, Korea had a gradual process for the emancipation of slavery starting in 1775 - with the majority of slaves freed in 1801. Limited slavery remained for over a century, but then, it didn't have a civil war.
Since the time that women's rights movement started in the West (mid-1800s), both the West and other societies went through many changes - often massive ones. Within the timespan of whole civilization, 150 years is a pretty small blip. On this time scale, ideas often originate in one society and filter out to another - like how gunpowder filtered out from China to the West, or communism filtered out from the West to elsewhere. Civilizations should get credit for originating ideas, but there's also a big question of what they do with them.
I honestly cannot take modern American feminism seriously when their leaders advocate jihad against Trump for getting elected but do not bother to say a word about female genital mutilation (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation) around the world and instead rage on about mansplaining and manspreading. I'm pretty convinced that they are just tools being used politically as such.
Quote from: jhkim;1078802I would certainly give credit to Western civilization, which has many good points - but it is rampant ignorance to say that the West is the only place where rights made progress. For example, Korea had a gradual process for the emancipation of slavery starting in 1775 - with the majority of slaves freed in 1801. Limited slavery remained for over a century, but then, it didn't have a civil war.
Since the time that women's rights movement started in the West (mid-1800s), both the West and other societies went through many changes - often massive ones. Within the timespan of whole civilization, 150 years is a pretty small blip. On this time scale, ideas often originate in one society and filter out to another - like how gunpowder filtered out from China to the West, or communism filtered out from the West to elsewhere. Civilizations should get credit for originating ideas, but there's also a big question of what they do with them.
Sure sure, both of you. But Pundit's first sentence is demonstrably false.
QuoteIt's is unquestionably true that women have been treated as varying degrees of chattel in every culture that has existed throughout history since the dawn of time... except one.
I get his point, but this kind of reductionist, gender specific nonsense is exactly what feminists use to paint a picture of women as property until some -ism came and "liberated" them.
IMO the technological inventions, specifically and especially modern birth control, did more to liberate women than any -ism or cutural movement.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1078807Sure sure, both of you. But Pundit's first sentence is demonstrably false.
I get his point, but this kind of reductionist, gender specific nonsense is exactly what feminists use to paint a picture of women as property until some -ism came and "liberated" them.
IMO the technological inventions, specifically and especially modern birth control, did more to liberate women than any -ism or cutural movement.
Greetings!
DOH! I'm sorry, Ratman. I didn't realize on the first read-over that Pundit had quite worded it that way. You are correct for pointing that out, my friend.
SHARK puffs on his pipe, slowly shaking his head. Damn, how did I not read that close enough to catch that? SHARK the Bonehead. LOL.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1078807IMO the technological inventions, specifically and especially modern birth control, did more to liberate women than any -ism or cultural movement.
Do not underestimate the power of labor saving inventions for what was traditionally considered women's housework. If you have ever spent time on a farm or ranch, without a nearby grocery store to buy what you want to eat, you have seen how much effort goes in to making and preparing food. Women were traditionally bound to home and hearth before then because of the amount of work that had to go into just sustaining the family.
Quote from: SHARK;1078814SHARK the Bonehead. LOL.
Hammerhead.
Jeez SHARK, way to miss the softball. :D
Quote from: jeff37923;1078824Do not underestimate the power of labor saving inventions for what was traditionally considered women's housework. If you have ever spent time on a farm or ranch, without a nearby grocery store to buy what you want to eat, you have seen how much effort goes in to making and preparing food. Women were traditionally bound to home and hearth before then because of the amount of work that had to go into just sustaining the family.
If you have you ever done laundry by hand, then you have a great appreciation for the modern washer and dryer. The list of labor saving devices is long and very much underappreciated in the modern world. There is a reason that people had large families in the past and it wasn't just about birth control and higher mortality rates, they needed a work force to get all the needed chores done.
Quote from: jhkim;1078802I would certainly give credit to Western civilization, which has many good points - but it is rampant ignorance to say that the West is the only place where rights made progress. For example, Korea had a gradual process for the emancipation of slavery starting in 1775 - with the majority of slaves freed in 1801. Limited slavery remained for over a century, but then, it didn't have a civil war.
At what point did Korea stop forced prostitution via family sale? That continued in Japan through the end of WWII.
It basically continued in Texas, legally, until 2017. (And still is, more-or-less, legal in many States. Note that I'm vastly oversimplifying that issue to boil it down to its barest elements: child prostitution through enforced child contract marriages.)
Quote from: Motorskills;1078825Hammerhead.
Jeez SHARK, way to miss the softball. :D
Greetings!
LOLOLOLOLOLOL! Nice, Motorskills. :) Yeah, I did miss it! That was excellent. I was laughing like crazy at your quip, Motorskills. Love it!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkimI would certainly give credit to Western civilization, which has many good points - but it is rampant ignorance to say that the West is the only place where rights made progress. For example, Korea had a gradual process for the emancipation of slavery starting in 1775 - with the majority of slaves freed in 1801. Limited slavery remained for over a century, but then, it didn't have a civil war.
Quote from: Lynn;1078863At what point did Korea stop forced prostitution via family sale? That continued in Japan through the end of WWII.
Korea has many moral faults, but they did not have that practice. Indeed, to this day, Koreans remain outraged over the Korean "comfort women" that Japan forced into prostitution for the military during the Japanese occupation (before and during WWII). There is a recent statue in San Francisco that commemorates the comfort women, which has caused a rift between the city and Japan, with Osaka calling off its sister city status with SF over it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/us/osaka-sf-comfort-women-statue.html
In the larger sense, though, there are plenty of moral faults that Koreans have had - including the status of women. They have not been more progressive than the West in general - far from it. However, my point is that Pundit went way overboard in quotes like this:
Quote from: RPGPunditIt's is unquestionably true that women have been treated as varying degrees of chattel in every culture that has existed throughout history since the dawn of time... except one.
which SHARK followed up with
Quote from: SHARKHowever, it is only true in Western Civilization that rights for both men and women, and especially women, have expanded in a progressive manner through the years.
I credit Western civilization with a bunch of advances, but these are just wacky. No other civilization has ever progressed in rights? That's just nonsensical.
Quote from: jhkim;1078884Korea has many moral faults, but they did not have that practice. Indeed, to this day, Koreans remain outraged over the Korean "comfort women" that Japan forced into prostitution for the military during the Japanese occupation (before and during WWII). There is a recent statue in San Francisco that commemorates the comfort women, which has caused a rift between the city and Japan, with Osaka calling off its sister city status with SF over it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/us/osaka-sf-comfort-women-statue.html
In the larger sense, though, there are plenty of moral faults that Koreans have had - including the status of women. They have not been more progressive than the West in general - far from it. However, my point is that Pundit went way overboard in quotes like this:
which SHARK followed up with
I credit Western civilization with a bunch of advances, but these are just wacky. No other civilization has ever progressed in rights? That's just nonsensical.
Greetings!
Jhkim, I never said that no other civilization ever progressed in rights. None have been *as progressive* as Western Civilization, though. That isn't *nonsense* at all. It is historical fact.
QED.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK;1078875Greetings!
LOLOLOLOLOLOL! Nice, Motorskills. :) Yeah, I did miss it! That was excellent. I was laughing like crazy at your quip, Motorskills. Love it!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
And now he's gone full basking shark.
Quote from: SHARKHowever, it is only true in Western Civilization that rights for both men and women, and especially women, have expanded in a progressive manner through the years.
...
Quote from: SHARK;1078899Jhkim, I never said that no other civilization ever progressed in rights. None have been *as progressive* as Western Civilization, though. That isn't *nonsense* at all. It is historical fact.
SHARK, you have a fail in phrasing there. That's not what your first sentence says.
For the more general point, at this moment in time, I would Western countries highest for civil rights compared to any other grouping. There are a bunch of non-Western countries that are doing fine. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and others are roughly equivalent to Europe and the Americas - but on average the West is doing fine.
On the status of women in the West vs elsewhere, well first remember that "elsewhere" is a big place :) BUT I'll say one thing where I often get a lot of disagreement from others, but I think I can support it; women have had it better in the West compared to many other places for much longer than many people dare to admit. This is another thing I think is a bit of a flaw in western feminism; in order to get their way they have to exaggerate the ills of women in the past. Gender roles were of course much more set in the stone in the past, which could be unfair, but it was not as bad as some seem to think. Many have also have a tendency to blame Christianity for it (e.g. see Gloria Steinem), when in fact the combination of the old warrior codes plus Christianity led to European chivalry, which enhanced the role of women in many parts of Europe (see e.g. The Middle Ages, by Bishop). Now, some groups had higher status of women (e.g. relatively egalitarian hunter gatherers, although this is sometimes a bit rose tinted as well, and some matrilineal societies), but I dare say that European women of e.g. around the 1500s had higher status than in the Middle-East (Ottomans, and Persia), China, India and many other places.
Colonization by the European powers brought Western culture, concepts and Christianity to the colonized nations, and nations which did significant local trade. It's no surprise many Western cultural concepts (democracy, women's rights, etc) became embraced by Eastern nations. Korea and Japan have sizable Christian populations, and all the Eastern nations had a long history of literacy so its not surprising to see Western ideals become part of Eastern history from the 18th century onward.
Quote from: Trond;1078448Don't hold your breath unless you're prepared to pay an arm and a leg for something only vaguely resembling a sex partner.
They will be like Teslas.
The first ones will be incredibly expensive toys of the rich.
The second round will be costly, but available as premium rentals. Like how people rent sports cars or big SUVs on vacation.
The third round will be Uber4sex.
Quote from: Trond;1078448Besides, all sorts of machines can have bad days. Time for a rather embarrassing tech support phone call.
THAT is an SNL skit begging to happen.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1078471I'd imagine sexbots will have the same flaws "You want to fuck? Sorry, but I have an update right now..."
I fully agree that early models will have LOTS of technical issues. And I mean LOLZ worthy technical hysterics.
BUT...remember doing system updates 20 years ago? I remember working at firms where "the server's down" meant "do something else until the tech guy shows up which might be tomorrow". Now I just reboot.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1078493A sexbot can't love you.
True, but many people develop "love" for favorite objects. We've all met THAT guy who is extra weird about his car.
Also, considering the length and depth of most marriages, humans don't "love" that much either. They mostly co-exist as room mates.
Quote from: Shasarak;1078497I am sure that their love algorithms will get better and better over time ;0)
Just like any AI. Compare machine learning in 2010 vs. 2018 and its insane how far we've advanced.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1078532What we have are elaborate rubber dolls with vibrators and tape recorders built in.
This is 100% correct...for today.
A horse was argued as the better option than a Model T...but the car/horse comparison ended in just a decade.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078598I believe that feminism is the radical notion that women are equal. Full stop. That's why I'm a feminist.
That definition of feminism isn't the current one, especially because "equal" is a politicized term.
I believe men and women should be equal under the law. We are biologically different genders which is going to produce different results in different tasks in life, and that's okay.
Quote from: SHARK;1078540Men *routinely* get destroyed in divorce courts.
Until recently, I did divorce consulting. As you might imagine, its lucrative, but the child custody aspect is soul crushing.
It's 100% true men get it worse in court, but what courts destroy most is families. The "family law" system actively makes divorce much worse than necessary and kids are the losers. And courts don't give a fuck how damaged the kids become. Nobody has the "legal right" to a good home, happy childhood or a future.
If you look at the stats post-divorce, husbands do better than their ex-wives...long term. The MSM and feminism tell women how awesome divorce is gonna be (with lots of money and a cock carousel!!), but reality for most women is loneliness and getting by with much less.
Also, divorce courts have huge power to hammer men with standard salary jobs to pay child support, but the system falls apart trying to deal with men who walk away if they have non-standard finances.
The men I've seen who get the most fucked are the ones who "play by the rules" and keep thinking that appeasing the ex-wife is best for the kids. These poor guys don't understand they're not dads anymore. At 25% time-share, they are uncles now.
Quote from: SHARK;1078540He's lost his family, his children, his wife, and his home; his whole life that he has worked hard to build for many years, even *decades*--is, in a matter of a few months, all taken from him.
But this isn't new. That's been the story for decades.
Here's the advice I gave to all my clients:
1) Divorce Inc is a money machine. Divorce is a mega-billion dollar industry for the lawyers, therapists, monitors, judges, clerks, interpreters, and the rest of the fucking assholes whose livelihood depends on divorces becoming more acrimonious. [And yes, that included me] The only way to win is not to play. And if you have to get divorced, do what it takes to minimize your involvement with the courts.
2) Never get married. You have to be an utter idiot in America to get married once you see how the system works. If you want kids, adopt. We have millions of abandoned little crumb crunchers who need a devoted parent. Sure, you can use test tubes and surrogates, but I promote adoption because a good adoptive parent saves a kid's life.
3) Most people who get remarried get divorced again. Why? The same bullshit from the first marriage as both parties do the same dance with new partners. Enjoy paying spousal support to two ex-wives dumbass.
Yes, I know its taboo to be anti-marriage, but I've spent too much time in the divorce trenches. You have no idea how common it is for judges to order payments of "wedding and honeymoon debts" into the divorce judgments and I've actually watched multiple screaming fights about the wedding cake pieces in the freezer being saved for future anniversaries.
Quote from: SHARK;1078540Increasingly, she only has her cats to keep her company.
Cats are awesome.
They kill for fun and don't give a fuck. They will literally do something super shitty, then look you directly in the eyes with a "so what the fuck are you gonna do about it" attitude.
The little beasts are pure heavy metal.
Quote from: SHARK;1078540Playboy is caving in to the new social mantra.
In the age of unlimited free internet porn on demand, I have no idea how Playboy even exists.
I don't see what economic niche they have anymore.
Quote from: S'mon;1078641My impression is that it changes over time - mothers are more important early on, and fathers are more important later on. Teenagers seem to need fathers more, whereas infants seem to need mothers more.
Fathers and mothers parent differently. It's rare for a divorce judge to understand that, or be bold enough to consider that.
Moms can't be dads and dads can't be moms. Many single parents can be great parents, far better than two morons, but kids are best served by receiving mom and dad attention, which aren't the same.
As a former special education teacher, I assure you both boys and girls need both mom and dad through all ages. They play different, but equally important roles through the growth process (if engaged with their child). The difference between a kid's progress who had a two parents vs. one parent vs. foster care home were sobering.
Quote from: jhkim;1078884Korea has many moral faults, but they did not have that practice. Indeed, to this day, Koreans remain outraged over the Korean "comfort women" that Japan forced into prostitution for the military during the Japanese occupation (before and during WWII). There is a recent statue in San Francisco that commemorates the comfort women, which has caused a rift between the city and Japan, with Osaka calling off its sister city status with SF over it.
Yes, but those are not really the same things.
The closest thing I could find on Korea having something similar was Kisaeng (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kisaeng), but some evolved into a skilled or entertainment trade (like geisha). This same wikipedia article also mentions some class based slavery as well, that reminds me very much of Burakumin in Japan.
Quote from: Trond;1078919Many have also have a tendency to blame Christianity for it (e.g. see Gloria Steinem), when in fact the combination of the old warrior codes plus Christianity led to European chivalry, which enhanced the role of women in many parts of Europe (see e.g. The Middle Ages, by Bishop). Now, some groups had higher status of women (e.g. relatively egalitarian hunter gatherers, although this is sometimes a bit rose tinted as well, and some matrilineal societies), but I dare say that European women of e.g. around the 1500s had higher status than in the Middle-East (Ottomans, and Persia), China, India and many other places.
Regarding Christianity, it depends on the society. I know that the status of women declined in Iceland after Christianization. In the pagan period, women could at least own property and be heads of households. The role of women is illustrated in pre-Christian epics like the Laxdaela Saga, where a number of women were noted leaders. After Christianity, their rights were reduced and they mostly could only act through their father, husband, or sons.
As for the 1500s - I roughly agree with you, but the difference can be overstated. Elizabeth I was more notably successful than Sultana Shajar al-Durr or Empress Wu Zetian, for example, but in all of these, women's rights are pretty limited and these women leaders were the rare exception that did not change the norm.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1078920Colonization by the European powers brought Western culture, concepts and Christianity to the colonized nations, and nations which did significant local trade. It's no surprise many Western cultural concepts (democracy, women's rights, etc) became embraced by Eastern nations. Korea and Japan have sizable Christian populations, and all the Eastern nations had a long history of literacy so its not surprising to see Western ideals become part of Eastern history from the 18th century onward.
Is this regarding abolition in Korea? This is bullshit, because Korea and Japan were never colonized by the West until the 1940s. Both countries were extremely resistant to foreign philosophy in the 1700s and 1800s, and never adopted Christianity, democracy, or other Western concepts at the ruling level. Christianity was rare and suppressed, and mostly among the masses rather than the elites. Further, the start of abolition of slavery in Korea in the 1700s was prior to abolition becoming mainstream within the West.
I would say rather that these were both parallel reactions to ongoing social conditions. As another example of parallel development, moveable metal type was invented in Korea nearly a century prior to Guttenberg in Europe. This was not Koreans benefiting from the spread of European technology, or Europeans borrowing Korean technology. Both civilizations were advancing.
Quote from: jhkim;1078931Is this regarding abolition in Korea? This is bullshit, because Korea and Japan were never colonized by the West until the 1940s.
Korea and Japan weren't truly colonized, even then. No comparison to the rule of French Indochina or British control of China. But the spread of information via trade was occurring from the silk road onward, and it was a two way street. That's how humans interact.
Korea and Japan definitely pushed back against "Western intervention" in their political control, but their elites weren't ignorant of Western concepts. We talk about memes and ideas as mind worms today. Humans weren't any different 3 centuries ago.
But you're right both civilizations were advancing, so there would be parallel reactions to social conditions. Your moveable metal type discussion is particularly relevant as printed texts increased literacy which only hastened the transfer of cultural concepts.
I'd happily argue "Western Civilization" isn't even 100% "Western" in origin. Human history is a glorious hodge podge of "cultural appropriation" and we forget that not just the Ship's Captain did the exploring and travelling. All the crew who came back from voyages shared what they saw, ate and learned, inspiring others with new ideas that brewed and got brought forth in some fashion, now lost in time.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1078920The third round will be Uber4sex.
Wouldn't that be considered prostitution?
Quote from: jeff37923;1078940Wouldn't that be considered prostitution?
Probably not, unless the courts give AIs personhood.
Otherwise, it's sex toy rental at best.
Quote from: Spinachcat;10789272) Never get married. You have to be an utter idiot in America to get married once you see how the system works. If you want kids, adopt. We have millions of abandoned little crumb crunchers who need a devoted parent. Sure, you can use test tubes and surrogates, but I promote adoption because a good adoptive parent saves a kid's life.
I am not a Psychologist and I only play one on the Internet and on the other hand it seems to me that Marriage is the best of the worst options we have for getting two people to stay together long enough to raise a family.
Quote from: Thornhammer;1078942Probably not, unless the courts give AIs personhood.
Otherwise, it's sex toy rental at best.
We're one step of the way there already. AI-based trading systems already have limited personhood for the ability to enforce contracts.
Re Christianity and female status.
From what I can see, women had low status in most pre Christian middle Eastern and Mediterranean cultures. Christianity raised female status there. Women generally had higher status in northern European cultures. By spreading Mediterranean norms, Christianity could lower female status there.
In Martin Luther King's 'I have a Dream Speech', he pointed out that those seeking Civil Rights were repeatedly asked, "When will you be satisfied?". There were small victories here and there (like desegregation of buses in Montgomery) and a lot of people pointed out that conditions in the United States of America, even for a legally oppressed minority were often better than in other countries. Post-war prosperity existed, and even if the benefits weren't shared equally, everyone received SOME benefits.
But being better off than SOME people still doesn't mean that you're being treated fairly.
In an earlier speech announcing the boycott of the Montgomery buses, King said, "And certainly, certainly, this is the glory of America, with all of its faults. This is the glory of our democracy. If we were incarcerated behind the iron curtains of a Communistic nation we couldn't do this. If we were dropped in the dungeon of a totalitarian regime we couldn't do this. But the great glory of American democracy is the right to protest for right."
Women should agitate for full equality. Pointing out that 'you have it better than someone else' is NOT a defense against full equality - it is simply an admission that true equality has not been granted and that historical oppression is undeniably true.
In my entire life, there has never been a time I haven't been able to do something I wanted to do because of my sex. That is NOT TRUE for my sisters.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1078938Korea and Japan weren't truly colonized, even then. No comparison to the rule of French Indochina or British control of China. But the spread of information via trade was occurring from the silk road onward, and it was a two way street. That's how humans interact. Korea and Japan definitely pushed back against "Western intervention" in their political control, but their elites weren't ignorant of Western concepts. We talk about memes and ideas as mind worms today. Humans weren't any different 3 centuries ago.
After the fall of the Shogunate and Meiji Restoration (ie rule of the Emperor), there was a very strong push to adopt methodologies that the Japanese thought would give them a leg up against foreign powers - which is where those ubiquitous blue school uniforms come from that look so militaristic. Although the US quite distinctly created the 'crack' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Ships) that brought down the Shogunate, the Meiji government modeled their updated military on European standards.
Changes in human rights did progress a little, but your 'unit' of measurement wasn't the individual but the family. There are still many institutions that focus on family rather than the individual that can be quite confounding.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079004Women should agitate for full equality. Pointing out that 'you have it better than someone else' is NOT a defense against full equality - it is simply an admission that true equality has not been granted and that historical oppression is undeniably true.
Historical oppression affected everyone.
QuoteIn my entire life, there has never been a time I haven't been able to do something I wanted to do because of my sex. That is NOT TRUE for my sisters.
Name one legal right in the west, especially America, that men have and women don't.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079008Name one legal right in the west, especially America, that men have and women don't.
Why does it have to be a legal right?
The laws are on the books, but that doesn't mean they're enforced. Just because I have a legal right not to be murdered, it doesn't mean that I'm going to put myself in a dangerous situation on purpose. And if I see dangerous situations, I want to make sure they're taken care of. There are places I go where I know I'm safe and some of those are places that I don't think would be safe for a woman.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079014Why does it have to be a legal right?
To delineate between systemic oppression, and the choices of women.
QuoteThe laws are on the books, but that doesn't mean they're enforced. Just because I have a legal right not to be murdered, it doesn't mean that I'm going to put myself in a dangerous situation on purpose. And if I see dangerous situations, I want to make sure they're taken care of. There are places I go where I know I'm safe and some of those are places that I don't think would be safe for a woman.
Men are more likely to be harmed than women.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10752232/Our-attitude-to-violence-against-men-is-out-of-date.html
People and society have an exaggerated incination to protect women that is, frankly, sexist. Violence against anyone is wrong, but focusing on women is only seeing a portion of the picture.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079015Men are more likely to be harmed than women.
I know that. Roughly 80% of homicide victims are men; roughly 90% of murderers are men. Of the ~20% of female murder victims, more than half are killed by their intimate partner.
I have issues with gang violence. That's a big issue that affects primarily men. We should deal with that.
I have issues with domestic violence. That's a big issue that affects primarily women. We should deal with that.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079014Why does it have to be a legal right?
The laws are on the books, but that doesn't mean they're enforced. Just because I have a legal right not to be murdered, it doesn't mean that I'm going to put myself in a dangerous situation on purpose. And if I see dangerous situations, I want to make sure they're taken care of. There are places I go where I know I'm safe and some of those are places that I don't think would be safe for a woman.
You're full of shit. Those places?
You ain't safe either. But you don't know/care - because you're a man.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079017I have issues with domestic violence. That's a big issue that affects primarily women. We should deal with that.
No, although domestic murder is mostly on m-on-f.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079015People and society have an exaggerated incination to protect women that is, frankly, sexist.
There are perfectly cromulent evolutionary reasons why we are hardwired to prioritise female safety. Even in societies where women are second-class, they are not disposable - or at any rate they are less disposable than low-status males.
I am in the slightly weird position where I sympathise more with the PROTECT THE WAMMEN!! Soc-Jus types than I do with the Right-Libertarian EVERYONE IS EQUAL!! types - even though I'm not a chivalrous white-knighting Paleocon, I can see where they're coming from.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079017I know that. Roughly 80% of homicide victims are men; roughly 90% of murderers are men. Of the ~20% of female murder victims, more than half are killed by their intimate partner.
I have issues with gang violence. That's a big issue that affects primarily men. We should deal with that.
I have issues with domestic violence. That's a big issue that affects primarily women. We should deal with that.
Incorrect.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/the-number-of-male-domestic-1284479771263030.html
QuoteRoughly 40 percent of the victims of severe physical violence were men.
To put perpetration rates in perspective, 100% of domestic violence in lesbian relationships is committed by women.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079014Why does it have to be a legal right?
The laws are on the books, but that doesn't mean they're enforced. Just because I have a legal right not to be murdered, it doesn't mean that I'm going to put myself in a dangerous situation on purpose. And if I see dangerous situations, I want to make sure they're taken care of. There are places I go where I know I'm safe and some of those are places that I don't think would be safe for a woman.
Well, there are some things women can do because of their gender and men cannot, many of them might seem trivial (and to be fair, some are) but there are social limits sometimes backed by laws or how they enforced. Speaking generally, some of them involve men entering female only space (locker room, toilets, etc) vs females entering male only spaces, such as how female reporters can enter male locker rooms to do their job. A man asking for such access would likely at best be viewed skeptically due to social/cultural assumptions about men. Or how in jurisdictions women are allowed to use male facilities if the lady's room is too crowded.
In fairness, the advent of unisex faculties and semi private showers and locker may be changing this, though in high school our lady PE teachers didn't have the slightest hesitation about popping in the male lockers or shower at a moment's notice while the men had procedures follow (making sure things were clear, verbal announcement before entering including giving a reason. I didn't participate in college level sport and physical activities but hearsay indicated things were much the same. Violating these prohibitions too much can cost a man his job and reputation; it tends to take something more overt and damning to have the same results as a women.
Or that a man requesting a male physician may very likely be condemned as sexist rather than modest while a woman requesting a female physician IME, barely draws notice. I'm not claiming that women don't face some real inequities in "Western Civilization" and elsewhere or that men are oppressed just things in the real world are more nuanced than come across in internet discussions.
Quote from: CarlD.;1079027Well, there are some things women can do because of their gender and men cannot, many of them might seem trivial (and to be fair, some are) but there are social limits sometimes backed by laws or how they enforced. Speaking generally, some of them involve men entering female only space (locker room, toilets, etc) vs females entering male only spaces, such as hoe female reporters can enter male locker rooms to do their job. A man asking for such access would likely at best be viewed skeptically due to social/cultural assumptions about men. Or how in jurisdictions women are allowed to use male facilities if the lady's room is too crowded. In fairness, the advent of unisex faculties and semi private showers and locker may be changing this, though in high school our lady PE teachers didn't have the slightest hesitation about popping in the male lockers or shower at a moment's notice while the men had procedures follow (making sure things were clear, verbal announcement before entering including giving a reason. I didn't participate in college level sport and physical activities but hearsay indicated things were much the same. Violating these prohibitions too much can cost a man his job and reputation; it tends to take something more overt and damning to have the same results as a women.
Or that a man requesting a male physician may very likely be condemned as sexist rather than modest while a woman requesting a female physician IME, barely draws notice. I'm not claiming that women don't face some real inequities in "Western Civilization" and elsewhere or that men are oppressed just things in the real world are more nuanced than come across in internet discussions.
Was that intentional? :D
Quote from: S'mon;1079023There are perfectly cromulent evolutionary reasons why we are hardwired to prioritise female safety. Even in societies where women are second-class, they are not disposable - or at any rate they are less disposable than low-status males.
I am in the slightly weird position where I sympathise more with the PROTECT THE WAMMEN!! Soc-Jus types than I do with the Right-Libertarian EVERYONE IS EQUAL!! types - even though I'm not a chivalrous white-knighting Paleocon, I can see where they're coming from.
I'm sympathetic too. But it can lead to unbalances, like the gender sentencing gap (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html), where women are given more leniency because of their sex.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079004In my entire life, there has never been a time I haven't been able to do something I wanted to do because of my sex. That is NOT TRUE for my sisters.
I'm curious. What's this about?
Anyway, as a man I have sometimes been discriminated against because of my sex, and some of your male relatives probably have too. For several years, I was hounded my the military of my country to do service in the only battalion that has seen actual fighting in the last few decades. I delayed (blaming it on my studies) until I left the country. Recently, the laws have been changed so that women also get to deal with this shit (I would have preferred that it was voluntary), but it is still easier to drop out of military service if you're a woman. If you're from America, probably some of your relatives were enlisted in Vietnam or some other war. During WWI there were women's groups that were shaming men who were avoiding going to the trenches. Some areas of Europe were actually depleted of men after that war. I find it bizarre that so many people are unwilling to see that being a man, with whatever benefits that entails, has usually come at a price, and often a pretty steep one.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079004In my entire life, there has never been a time I haven't been able to do something I wanted to do because of my sex. That is NOT TRUE for my sisters.
I am struggling to think of even one thing that I could do that my sister could not. Maybe use the male toilet?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079017I know that. Roughly 80% of homicide victims are men; roughly 90% of murderers are men. Of the ~20% of female murder victims, more than half are killed by their intimate partner.
I have issues with gang violence. That's a big issue that affects primarily men. We should deal with that.
I have issues with domestic violence. That's a big issue that affects primarily women. We should deal with that.
The current stats that I saw indicated that 50% of domestic crime was fueled by alcohol abuse. Maybe that would be a better target to "deal" with.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079008Historical oppression affected everyone.
I think this is a huge point that feminists just gloss over. There was no one going out of their way to "oppress" women, men and women were striving together against crushing poverty to eke out an existence for them and their families.
Do these people even bother to study history?
Quote from: Trond;1079048Was that intentional? :D
If it made me seem clever and witty then yes, but if it didn't definitely no. Now just what did I fuck up? :D
Quote from: Shasarak;1079075I think this is a huge point that feminists just gloss over. There was no one going out of their way to "oppress" women, men and women were striving together against crushing poverty to eke out an existence for them and their families.
Do these people even bother to study history?
Yeah, sure, and nobles and serfs just worked together to do what was best for everyone. The nobles protected them, and the serfs made sure everyone got fed.
That's nonsense.
Nobles weren't all baby-eating monsters, but conversely, not everyone was just warm good guys just trying to help each other. In all times, people generally act in self-interest. If they have power and can benefit from using that power on the less powerful, they will frequently do so. They can act in greedy ways, exploit what they can, and use power over others to benefit at their expense. The people lower in status, with less power, would often be treated unfairly.
It's all well and good to hope for happy Barney land where the people in power will be nice to everyone below them. But real life usually isn't like that. That applies to anyone with lesser power, whether serfs, women, gypsies, Jews, or whoever. And it applies to all societies - Western, Eastern, Indian, etc. It's basic human nature.
Quote from: jhkim;1079095Yeah, sure, and nobles and serfs just worked together to do what was best for everyone. The nobles protected them, and the serfs made sure everyone got fed.
That's nonsense.
Nobles weren't all baby-eating monsters, but conversely, not everyone was just warm good guys just trying to help each other. In all times, people generally act in self-interest. If they have power and can benefit from using that power on the less powerful, they will frequently do so. They can act in greedy ways, exploit what they can, and use power over others to benefit at their expense. The people lower in status, with less power, would often be treated unfairly.
It's all well and good to hope for happy Barney land where the people in power will be nice to everyone below them. But real life usually isn't like that. That applies to anyone with lesser power, whether serfs, women, gypsies, Jews, or whoever. And it applies to all societies - Western, Eastern, Indian, etc. It's basic human nature.
Way to strawman that post, dude.
Quote from: jhkim;1079095Yeah, sure, and nobles and serfs just worked together to do what was best for everyone. The nobles protected them, and the serfs made sure everyone got fed.
That's nonsense.
Nobles weren't all baby-eating monsters, but conversely, not everyone was just warm good guys just trying to help each other. In all times, people generally act in self-interest. If they have power and can benefit from using that power on the less powerful, they will frequently do so. They can act in greedy ways, exploit what they can, and use power over others to benefit at their expense. The people lower in status, with less power, would often be treated unfairly.
It's all well and good to hope for happy Barney land where the people in power will be nice to everyone below them. But real life usually isn't like that. That applies to anyone with lesser power, whether serfs, women, gypsies, Jews, or whoever. And it applies to all societies - Western, Eastern, Indian, etc. It's basic human nature.
I did not say that everyone was warm good guys working together, that is the whole point - there was no warm good guys working together; men and women worked together in their family units to try and survive all that life could throw at them. You had Noble men and women and you had serf men and women, gypsy men and women and jewish men and women. Where was the suppression against women exactly?
You just need to spend 5 minutes looking at a history book to see that was not true.
Quote from: CarlD.;1079094Now just what did I fuck up? :D
The bolded part (see my previous post)
Quote from: jhkim;1072448if some Muslims engage in terrorism, do moderate Muslims have some level of responsibility for that? If some liberals engage in antifa violence and suppression of free speech, do other liberals have some level of responsibility? More broadly, if some men engage in harassment of women, do other men have some level of responsibility? On some level, obviously the responsibility is squarely with whoever commits the act. But I think people do have some responsibility to make their own community better. Although being born male is an accident of biology, there is a broad male culture and male communities that have their own norms.
In general, communities are more concerned about things done to them than in policing their own - which is understandable, but also a flaw. We should see the bad being done by our community as a real issue. Sexual harassment is predominantly committed by men, so it should be seen as more of an issue for men.
Can't disagree.
Quote from: Trond;1072545Come to think of it, the "harassment" I got on the strongly anti-harassment site RPG.net was worse. I was told to "shut the fuck up" more than once, someone implied that I was better off dead, etc.
Not surprising.
Quote from: rawma;1072739A long time ago I visited New York City and saw a giraffe diorama at the natural history museum. The display carefully explained that many people incorrectly believe that giraffes don't have vocal cords. While I was pondering this information, an older man with a small boy approached the display and the man carefully explained to the boy that giraffes do not have vocal cords. If Zen enlightenment consisted of understanding the boundlessness of stupidity, that was the moment I would have attained Zen mastery.
Perhaps they were a little distracting trying to be the authority figure.
Quote from: rgalex;1072740Nope. While men experience more harassment online, they also don't view it as serious or feel as threatened by it as women do.
On the other hand women have a wider definition for what counts as harassment.
Quote from: SHARK;1072973Well, on the West Coast, there were also concerns that the ordinary citizens were going to riot en masse and hunt the Japanese down and kill them all. It certainly wasn't an issue that local law enforcement could even dream of handling during those times. The government *was* geneuinely concerned that there were going to be mass lynchings and other executions of Japanese people. The people everywhere, to every law enforcement and government official, everyone--was demanding that the government do something about the Japanese. No one was going to listen to sweet, reassuring talk about how we need to love the Japanese. So, in some ways, the internment camps were a sort of emergency response not only to make efforts to curb any internal Japanese assistance to any Japanese attacks or invasion of the West Coast, but also to protect the Japanese Americans from annihilation.
Imprisoning people 'for their own safety' is the kind of thing I'd expect from a #JudgeDredd comic, and the only reason things didn't go south is that America wasn't as frightened or unreasonable as you imply.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1072976That would be convincing if not for the fact that EO 9066, which authorized it all, happened within 60 days of Pearl Harbor, well before any local violence, beyond isolated and sporadic incidents, happened. In fact, the only recordings we really have of any mass violence before EO 9066... was conducted by the FBI and the Navy, both of which were invading homes and locking up random Japanese Americans suspected of spying. (Nothing was ever found.)
Further, many reports of violence and calls for them to be locked up came from the infamous DeWitt Report. And they were almost all fabrications completely made up by LTG DeWitt (and his staff) to convince the government that EO 9066 was needed. Originally, he proposed Italians and Germans as well, but the government was having none of that.
Only a few of the camps actually did things like college-release programs. Many suffered from deteriorating conditions and hard labor camps that were pretty terrible. While they never approached the level of systematic eradication of the concentration camps in Europe, they certainly were NOT there to protect the Japanese. (For example of how they were better, there were at least attempts to hold schools and religious centers in several of the internment camps.)
Literally the seeds of fascism, and were this to have occurred elsewhere it might have germinated.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079004In an earlier speech announcing the boycott of the Montgomery buses, King said, "And certainly, certainly, this is the glory of America, with all of its faults. This is the glory of our democracy. If we were incarcerated behind the iron curtains of a Communistic nation we couldn't do this. If we were dropped in the dungeon of a totalitarian regime we couldn't do this. But the great glory of American democracy is the right to protest for right."
Same reason Mahatma Gandhi was able to successfully protest in British ruled India. It's a detail the #CtrlLeft continually miss, which doesn't surprise me as they've pretty much dismissed MLK as irrelevant in this day and age.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079004In my entire life, there has never been a time I haven't been able to do something I wanted to do because of my sex.
No, but there were certainly times you were forced to do something because of it.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1079117Can't disagree.
Not surprising.
Perhaps they were a little distracting trying to be the authority figure.
On the other hand women have a wider definition for what counts as harassment.
Imprisoning people 'for their own safety' is the kind of thing I'd expect from a #JudgeDredd comic, and the only reason things didn't go south is that America wasn't as frightened or unreasonable as you imply.
Literally the seeds of fascism, and were this to have occurred elsewhere it might have germinated.
Same reason Mahatma Gandhi was able to successfully protest in British ruled India. It's a detail the #CtrlLeft continually miss, which doesn't surprise me as they've pretty much dismissed MLK as irrelevant in this day and age.
No, but there were certainly times you were forced to do something because of it.
Greetings!
Well, Anon Adderlan, yes, thankfully things didn't go south. After all, in just two years time, we had Japanese Americans serving in the United States Army, killing Nazis in Italy. I wouldn't think that the internment of Japanese Americans at the time was the best response. I'm not entirely sure what the best response would have been, under the cicumstances. Even some Japanese American citizens *at the time* felt sympathy for what the government was doing. *shrug* I didn't live then, obviously. However, I have done a great deal of research on America's War in the Pacific, and studied extensive primary source documentation. The impression I got from that research is that the situation at the time was a lot more precarious and nuanced than people here, in our modern era, typically like to allow. A whole *lot* of people were screaming, and threatening all kinds of Chaos. The West Coast was screaming at the Federal government to do something, *now*. Evacuations, drills, air raids, the place was a literal powder keg. It's a good thing that calm was gradually restored. I was only pointing out some of the nuances and difficulties facing the leadership at the time, and many of those factors were very real concerns. Some turned out to be exaggerated, which is true. That doesn't mean though that the circumstances were not extraordinarily difficult, and the Federal government was involved in a whole lot of different things, trying to find answers and solutions.
Thankfully, we emerged victorious over the Japanese Empire, and won World War II.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Trond;1079107The bolded part (see my previous post)
*face palm* No, that was a goof. Bad typing more embarrassing as it wasn't even the contextually 'right' spelling of Ho for to a sexist Freudian slip...
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079004In my entire life, there has never been a time I haven't been able to do something I wanted to do because of my sex.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1079117No, but there were certainly times you were forced to do something because of it.
This is going to be entertaining. Please, pray tell, what I have been
forced to do because of my sex. It'd probably be helpful if you explain who forced me in each situation.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079224This is going to be entertaining. Please, pray tell, what I have been forced to do because of my sex. It'd probably be helpful if you explain who forced me in each situation.
US Government...Selective Service
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079224This is going to be entertaining. Please, pray tell, what I have been forced to do because of my sex. It'd probably be helpful if you explain who forced me in each situation.
I am more interested in what you can do that your sisters can not?
Quote from: jhkimNobles weren't all baby-eating monsters, but conversely, not everyone was just warm good guys just trying to help each other. In all times, people generally act in self-interest. If they have power and can benefit from using that power on the less powerful, they will frequently do so. They can act in greedy ways, exploit what they can, and use power over others to benefit at their expense. The people lower in status, with less power, would often be treated unfairly.
It's all well and good to hope for happy Barney land where the people in power will be nice to everyone below them. But real life usually isn't like that. That applies to anyone with lesser power, whether serfs, women, gypsies, Jews, or whoever. And it applies to all societies - Western, Eastern, Indian, etc. It's basic human nature.
Quote from: Shasarak;1079103I did not say that everyone was warm good guys working together, that is the whole point - there was no warm good guys working together; men and women worked together in their family units to try and survive all that life could throw at them. You had Noble men and women and you had serf men and women, gypsy men and women and jewish men and women. Where was the suppression against women exactly?
You just need to spend 5 minutes looking at a history book to see that was not true.
OK, let me break down the logic for you here:
1) In history, there have been people with political/economic power, with dominance over other people without political/economic power -- like nobles over serfs.
2) Those with power will often abuse that power, and exploit those under their power.
3) Women in history have often lacked political/economic power.
Your claim is that there was no oppression of women in history. That women and men just worked together.
I claim that this is a happy Barney land vision at odds with reality. In fact, women and men would often be in conflict - just like men and men would be in conflict, and women and women. Marriages were never all true love and harmony. Husbands and wives would often fight in history, just as they often do today. Anyone who opens a history book will see innumerable cases of such conflict - affairs, separation, revenge, and so forth. The history of every royal family (and every non-royal family) is filled with such conflicts.
When men and women were in conflict - and women lacked rights - then women would suffer. It was on this basis that women began to organize for establishing their rights - to be able to own and control property, to vote, to serve on juries and in government, and so forth.
Quote from: jhkim;1079241OK, let me break down the logic for you here:
1) In history, there have been people with political/economic power, with dominance over other people without political/economic power -- like nobles over serfs.
2) Those with power will often abuse that power, and exploit those under their power.
3) Women in history have often lacked political/economic power.
There is one notable exception to your examples. Women were both nobles and serfs. Queens and pesants. I doubt you will find a person who is both a queen and a pesant at the same time, or both a noble and a serf at the same time. But you will find somone who is both a woman and a noble, or is both a woman and a queen. (Or pesant, or serf) Women often held political and economic power. And sometimes abused their power over others.
QuoteYour claim is that there was no oppression of women in history. That women and men just worked together.
I'll let Shasarak answer this, but I note that is
not what he was saying.
Let
me break down the logic for
you.Along all of the social strata thoughout history, women have occupied them all. There were gendered roles, and these roles were limiting to women, but they were equally limiting to men, in a different way.
I'm replying to an earlier comment from S'mon that I didn't note.
Quote from: jhkimRegarding Christianity, it depends on the society. I know that the status of women declined in Iceland after Christianization. In the pagan period, women could at least own property and be heads of households. The role of women is illustrated in pre-Christian epics like the Laxdaela Saga, where a number of women were noted leaders. After Christianity, their rights were reduced and they mostly could only act through their father, husband, or sons.
As for the 1500s - I roughly agree with you, but the difference can be overstated. Elizabeth I was more notably successful than Sultana Shajar al-Durr or Empress Wu Zetian, for example, but in all of these, women's rights are pretty limited and these women leaders were the rare exception that did not change the norm.
Quote from: S'mon;1078951Re Christianity and female status.
From what I can see, women had low status in most pre Christian middle Eastern and Mediterranean cultures. Christianity raised female status there. Women generally had higher status in northern European cultures. By spreading Mediterranean norms, Christianity could lower female status there.
I don't know enough to make that generalization. It's sounds not unreasonable as an average - but I have some doubts. Early Christianity did have some notable women involved - and I'd buy that it raised the status of women compared to Judaism and some surrounding cultures. On the other hand, I think of Zenobia and Cleopatra in pre-Christian Egypt - and I don't see the post-Christian equivalents for a long time. Christianity quickly moved women out of spiritual authority - as compared to the priestesses in a number of pre-Christian Mediterranean religions, like the Vestal Virgins in Rome. It may have slightly helped women's status on average, but I feel like that record is pretty checkered at least.
As you say, though, I think the issue is more spreading social norms from specific Mediterranean societies including Judaism, rather than the teachings of Christ.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079251Along all of the social strata thoughout history, women have occupied them all. There were gendered roles, and these roles were limiting to women, but they were equally limiting to men, in a different way.
OK, "limited in a different way" sounds like double-speak to me, like "differently abled". A man could be pope. A woman could head a nunnery. I don't think it makes sense to say that the Pope is equally limited to a prioress, just in a different way. The normal English way to say this is that women had lower status.
Quote from: jhkim;1079241OK, let me break down the logic for you here:
1) In history, there have been people with political/economic power, with dominance over other people without political/economic power -- like nobles over serfs.
2) Those with power will often abuse that power, and exploit those under their power.
3) Women in history have often lacked political/economic power.
Your logic skips a connecting step between 2 and 3. You can open any history book and find women with political and economic power; Cleopatra, Joan of Arc, Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria. If that was not enough then just consider for a second that every King had a Queen. Is it your conjecture that those Queens had no political or economic power?
QuoteYour claim is that there was no oppression of women in history. That women and men just worked together.
No, I am claiming that there was no one going out of their way to specifically target women for oppression. There were never any roving bands of tyrannical patriarchs scouring the lands looking for women to oppress. Its just a fantasy.
QuoteI claim that this is a happy Barney land vision at odds with reality. In fact, women and men would often be in conflict - just like men and men would be in conflict, and women and women. Marriages were never all true love and harmony. Husbands and wives would often fight in history, just as they often do today. Anyone who opens a history book will see innumerable cases of such conflict - affairs, separation, revenge, and so forth. The history of every royal family (and every non-royal family) is filled with such conflicts.
When men and women were in conflict - and women lacked rights - then women would suffer. It was on this basis that women began to organize for establishing their rights - to be able to own and control property, to vote, to serve on juries and in government, and so forth.
Yes I would agree that anyone who claims that men and women are never in conflict is definitely pushing a happy Barney land vision. Personally I have never ever seen anyone make that type of claim but if you can quote them then I will join with you in soundly mocking them loudly with pointed finger.
Because in the real world people fight. They fight all the time. Men fight Women, Men fight Men, Women fight Women. Its never only one sex doing the fighting. Anyone who tells you that it is the fault of only one sex is lying to you.
Which is why one of the common commitments when two people get married is "to death do us part". Because life is hard, it is not fair and the two of you are going to fight but in the end you only have the other person to lean on so you damn well better sort it out so you can at least pull in the same direction. Was it perfect? Of course not obviously but marriage was one of the ways that the church used to protect womens rights.
Now it may come as a surprise to you but men and women are biologically different from each other and therefore have different advantages and disadvantages. For example women can have children and men can not. Women are biologically wired to look after their children. This is not some kind of tyrannical patriarchal social invention designed to oppress women it is just biology. Why are men out labouring in the fields, the forests, the mines? Because their muscles are stronger then womens muscles, it is not oppression it is biology.
Honestly if you find yourself arguing against science then it is just time to stop, not to double down.
Quote from: moonsweeper;1079231US Government...Selective Service
I wasn't forced to do Selective Service. I opted to do so. I'm also in favor or requiring women to register for Selective Service.
Remember, I was in ROTC. It certainly wouldn't offend me that I was allowed to let my country know that they could count of me if it ever came to it. Of course, I also knew it wouldn't have. We have had an all-volunteer army and I would have volunteered before I was drafted.
And of course, if I chose NOT to register, there were potential consequences, but nobody FORCED me to do it.
If I hadn't gone to college, there would have been consequences. We all make choices based on the consequences. If people 'force' you to do things you don't want to do REGULARLY you are a doormat.
Quote from: jhkim;1079270I'm replying to an earlier comment from S'mon that I didn't note.
I don't know enough to make that generalization. It's sounds not unreasonable as an average - but I have some doubts. Early Christianity did have some notable women involved - and I'd buy that it raised the status of women compared to Judaism and some surrounding cultures. On the other hand, I think of Zenobia and Cleopatra in pre-Christian Egypt - and I don't see the post-Christian equivalents for a long time. Christianity quickly moved women out of spiritual authority - as compared to the priestesses in a number of pre-Christian Mediterranean religions, like the Vestal Virgins in Rome. It may have slightly helped women's status on average, but I feel like that record is pretty checkered at least.
As you say, though, I think the issue is more spreading social norms from specific Mediterranean societies including Judaism, rather than the teachings of Christ.
OK, "limited in a different way" sounds like double-speak to me, like "differently abled". A man could be pope. A woman could head a nunnery. I don't think it makes sense to say that the Pope is equally limited to a prioress, just in a different way. The normal English way to say this is that women had lower status.
Greetings!
Well, Jhkim, the early centuries of christianity are absolutely *FULL* of women. Christian and early Roman sources discuss such all over the place. Were women involved as *spiritual leaders*? No, because the Bible does not authorize women to fulfill such a role. That does not mean, however, that women were not heavily involved. Women were key financial backers--even Paul talks about this in the Bible. There are women financing churches and home communities, financing, organizing, and leading food banks, kitchens, nurseries, orphanages, schools--all over the Roman Empire at the time, all aimed at serving and helping the Christian community and beyond. The fact is, Christianity *hugely* elevated the status of women all across society, far far more than the Pagan cultures of Rome, Greece, or Egypt, for example. Christianity elevated women as spiritual beings, made by God for Man, and with a divine purpose on the mortal world, and worthy of respect and being cherished. The Pagans essentially viewed women as slaves, breeders, and playthings.
Zenobia and Cleopatra don't count. By virtue of them both being *Queens* they are historical stand-outs, and were incredibly notable because of their beauty, intellect, and status. Christianity changed the social status of millions and millions of ordinary women in ways that were entirely alien to the Pagan cultures at the time. Christianity revolutionized society, humanity, and even the Roman Empire specifically because of the doctrines of Christianity. The enormous differences of how women were viewed by God, how women were viewed spiritually, and women were to be viewed by men was so enticing and refreshing to millions o women, it's a primary drive for why millions of women, often wealthy women, financed and supported the growth and strength of the Church throughout the Empire. Christianity spread like wildfire because WOMEN wanted Christianity. And well, as go the women, so too, go the men. The Roman Governor of Judea, Pontius Pilot, his *wife* became a Christian. It's not clear, but it can be imagined that had quite an effect on Pontius Pilot.
In later centuries, in different regions, Christianity tamped down on various kinds of women's rights. It's variable, and at times, was quite strict. Overall, however, Chrisstianity raised the social status of ordinary women in unimaginable ways compared to the Pagan cultures, and also laid the foundations, ironically enough, for women to address the shortcomings, and gain more rights over time.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079276I wasn't forced to do Selective Service. I opted to do so. I'm also in favor or requiring women to register for Selective Service.
Remember, I was in ROTC. It certainly wouldn't offend me that I was allowed to let my country know that they could count of me if it ever came to it. Of course, I also knew it wouldn't have. We have had an all-volunteer army and I would have volunteered before I was drafted.
And of course, if I chose NOT to register, there were potential consequences, but nobody FORCED me to do it.
If I hadn't gone to college, there would have been consequences. We all make choices based on the consequences. If people 'force' you to do things you don't want to do REGULARLY you are a doormat.
Are those potential consequences the same for women?
Quote from: jhkim;1079270OK, "limited in a different way" sounds like double-speak to me, like "differently abled". A man could be pope. A woman could head a nunnery. I don't think it makes sense to say that the Pope is equally limited to a prioress, just in a different way. The normal English way to say this is that women had lower status.
No, I'm saying gender roles were equally limiting to men and women. Not that they were identical roles.
Quote from: jhkim;1079270I don't know enough to make that generalization. It's sounds not unreasonable as an average
I was only generalising, ie talking about 'on average'. I can think of cultures in the Mediterranean where women had higher status - the Etruscans are an obvious example. But it seems like in general these cultures tended to be replaced by Greek and Roman culture, where women had notably low status - again, in general. Cleopatra was Greek, but inherited the Egyptian convention that a woman could be Pharoh. Queen Artemisia of Halicarnassus had a similar sort of 'fringe Greek' situation, 4 centuries earlier, within the Persian sphere. And the Queen of Sheba was presumably Semitic, but women tend to have low status in Semitic cultures - on average.
The possibility of a female ruler may say something about female status in a society, but IMO it's generally not as significant as indications of how normal free women are regarded in eg portraiture, grave goods, any writings.
Quote from: Shasarak;1079271Why are men out labouring in the fields, the forests, the mines? Because their muscles are stronger then womens muscles, it is not oppression it is biology.
I've read more than once that in most African societies women do 80% of the agricultural work... although the men are stronger. So there is definitely a cultural element too. Or at least a non-muscle element!
Quote from: jhkim;1079270Christianity quickly moved women out of spiritual authority - as compared to the priestesses in a number of pre-Christian Mediterranean religions, like the Vestal Virgins in Rome.
Have to say, bringing up the Vestal Virgins feels like a particularly weak argument! :D The Greek oracles also had 'spiritual authority' - but I'd say this counts as 'in office but not in power', a phrase used recently about our own Prime Minister.
Quote from: SHARK;1079280Greetings!
Well, Jhkim, the early centuries of christianity are absolutely *FULL* of women. Christian and early Roman sources discuss such all over the place. Were women involved as *spiritual leaders*? No, because the Bible does not authorize women to fulfill such a role. That does not mean, however, that women were not heavily involved. Women were key financial backers--even Paul talks about this in the Bible. There are women financing churches and home communities, financing, organizing, and leading food banks, kitchens, nurseries, orphanages, schools--all over the Roman Empire at the time, all aimed at serving and helping the Christian community and beyond. The fact is, Christianity *hugely* elevated the status of women all across society, far far more than the Pagan cultures of Rome, Greece, or Egypt, for example. Christianity elevated women as spiritual beings, made by God for Man, and with a divine purpose on the mortal world, and worthy of respect and being cherished. The Pagans essentially viewed women as slaves, breeders, and playthings.
Zenobia and Cleopatra don't count. By virtue of them both being *Queens* they are historical stand-outs, and were incredibly notable because of their beauty, intellect, and status. Christianity changed the social status of millions and millions of ordinary women in ways that were entirely alien to the Pagan cultures at the time. Christianity revolutionized society, humanity, and even the Roman Empire specifically because of the doctrines of Christianity. The enormous differences of how women were viewed by God, how women were viewed spiritually, and women were to be viewed by men was so enticing and refreshing to millions o women, it's a primary drive for why millions of women, often wealthy women, financed and supported the growth and strength of the Church throughout the Empire. Christianity spread like wildfire because WOMEN wanted Christianity. And well, as go the women, so too, go the men. The Roman Governor of Judea, Pontius Pilot, his *wife* became a Christian. It's not clear, but it can be imagined that had quite an effect on Pontius Pilot.
In later centuries, in different regions, Christianity tamped down on various kinds of women's rights. It's variable, and at times, was quite strict. Overall, however, Chrisstianity raised the social status of ordinary women in unimaginable ways compared to the Pagan cultures, and also laid the foundations, ironically enough, for women to address the shortcomings, and gain more rights over time.
I basically agree with this - if early Christianity wasn't seen as female-friendly, why were rich urban women such enthusiastic backers?
"Women had no power until the SJW era" doesn't fly in the face of history books and anthropology.
There's a reason women were called the power behind the throne and men in most cultures needed to be married to have full social stature. The wife was clearly viewed as more than a powerless servant in the union. Women, throughout history, have wielded a different form of social power.
Was it equal power? Depends how you look at it. Looking at pre-modern history, there was nearly constant war among nations and the men did most of the dying.
Being stabbed or shot to death was royally suckass.
Quote from: Shasarak;1078943I am not a Psychologist and I only play one on the Internet and on the other hand it seems to me that Marriage is the best of the worst options we have for getting two people to stay together long enough to raise a family.
Until the last 50 years (or so), you were 100% correct. However, US Family Law and the MSM propaganda about the kewlness of divorce and single parenthood have combined to nigh-erase that marriage / family bond.
Divorce fucks up kids, but adults are selfish so we're cool with fucked up kids and just rationalize everything with platitudes.
Quote from: jhkim;1079095Yeah, sure, and nobles and serfs just worked together to do what was best for everyone. The nobles protected them, and the serfs made sure everyone got fed.
That's nonsense.
It's not entirely nonsense. The serfs and nobles had a symbiotic relationship - an especially close one when looking at local nobles (aka, not kings and princes). The nation only held together if both nobles and serfs kept their side of the social bargain. Of course, plenty of nobles abused their power horrifically, and that was the common cause of rebellions.
Unlike the modern age where CEOs can get their next meal from anywhere and easily pop their business into a new city or country, the local noble could be starved out and his lands made effectively worthless via banditry, poaching and refusal to maintain crops and livestock.
I believe both the French and American Revolutions could have been adverted with just 25% less douchebaggery by the King's Court. But no, history shows that the Kings bought their own propaganda and pushed their peasants into a fight-or-die corner.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079224This is going to be entertaining. Please, pray tell, what I have been forced to do because of my sex. It'd probably be helpful if you explain who forced me in each situation.
Quote from: moonsweeper;1079231US Government...Selective Service
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079276I wasn't forced to do Selective Service. I opted to do so. I'm also in favor or requiring women to register for Selective Service.
Remember, I was in ROTC. It certainly wouldn't offend me that I was allowed to let my country know that they could count of me if it ever came to it. Of course, I also knew it wouldn't have. We have had an all-volunteer army and I would have volunteered before I was drafted.
And of course, if I chose NOT to register, there were potential consequences, but nobody FORCED me to do it.
If I hadn't gone to college, there would have been consequences. We all make choices based on the consequences. If people 'force' you to do things you don't want to do REGULARLY you are a doormat.
That was definitely entertaining!
You really are an ignorant fuckwit.
If you are discounting
'threat of legal consequences by the government' as force then you just invalidated your entire argument. That leaves the term 'forced' to apply in the
'someone has a gun to your head' or
'is currently physically overpowering you' situations. But, your own argument invalidates those as well because I have the option of letting myself be maimed or killed in those circumstances. By the logic in your own argument...
No one in all of human history has ever been 'forced' to do anything.[/B]
Quote from: S'mon;1079295I've read more than once that in most African societies women do 80% of the agricultural work... although the men are stronger. So there is definitely a cultural element too. Or at least a non-muscle element!
When we were Hunter-Gatherers the women used to do the Gathering because the men were doing the Hunting. Maybe that is the case in Africa?
Quote from: jhkim;1079270OK, "limited in a different way" sounds like double-speak to me, like "differently abled". A man could be pope. A woman could head a nunnery. I don't think it makes sense to say that the Pope is equally limited to a prioress, just in a different way. The normal English way to say this is that women had lower status.
I think that the Pope is a pretty good example of the foolishness of trying to falsely equivilate position with gender. OK so we can say that women can not be Pope so on the face of it it appears as if there is significant gender discrimination there. And on the other hand I am a male and I also can not be Pope. So now we have significant discrimination against men too. In fact the vast majority of the world can not be Pope. Its not Popes all the way down.
Quote from: Shasarak;1079321When we were Hunter-Gatherers the women used to do the Gathering because the men were doing the Hunting. Maybe that is the case in Africa?
These are farming cultures. The San/Bushmen hunter-gatherers are actually one of the more egalitarian societies.
Quote from: moonsweeper;1079319By the logic in your own argument...No one in all of human history has ever been 'forced' to do anything.[/B]
No, that doesn't follow. Rape could very clearly be 'forced'. Snatching my wallet could clearly be 'forced'.
Sexual relations could also be 'coerced'. Taking my wallet could also be 'coerced'.
When you're coerced, you make the decision that you feel gives you the fewest complications you can deal with. Neither one is usually fair, but they are very clearly different.
As for women and Selective Service, it could change (https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Women-And-Draft), but I don't think it is clearly an imposition on men. At the
very least, jackasses on the internet keep insisting that because women
couldn't register for the draft, and men were
required, that men deserve a special status in society. If that's all it's done, it clearly benefits men and not women. Like, obviously.
Quote from: jhkim;1079270OK, "limited in a different way" sounds like double-speak to me, like "differently abled". A man could be pope. A woman could head a nunnery. I don't think it makes sense to say that the Pope is equally limited to a prioress, just in a different way. The normal English way to say this is that women had lower status.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079342No, that doesn't follow. Rape could very clearly be 'forced'. Snatching my wallet could clearly be 'forced'.
Sexual relations could also be 'coerced'. Taking my wallet could also be 'coerced'.
When you're coerced, you make the decision that you feel gives you the fewest complications you can deal with. Neither one is usually fair, but they are very clearly different.
As for women and Selective Service, it could change (https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Women-And-Draft), but I don't think it is clearly an imposition on men. At the very least, jackasses on the internet keep insisting that because women couldn't register for the draft, and men were required, that men deserve a special status in society. If that's all it's done, it clearly benefits men and not women. Like, obviously.
You're both dancing around a subject that it seems you don't want to deal with. Men have usually been in charge, but it comes at a price, and often a steep one. Men's lives have always been riskier, even if you take into consideration things like the risk of childbirth in the past. My grandparents were in many ways fairly traditional, with the women generally assumed to be staying at home, though there were some options. My grandfather worked hard as a mason, and it made him permanently sick at one point. He also had to fight in WWII, was captured by the Nazis, and they hanged some of his inmates in front of him (most likely he was spared because he looked like such an "aryan" specimen). Men were generally assumed to be in charge, but at their home this was not always the case (as a personal observation). Anyway I don't think the women would have swapped places if they could. As I mentioned before, some areas of Europe were depleted of men after the world wars.
Another example; in some parts of Europe, family vendettas have been a thing until recently (maybe still in some areas; Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, and Crete all have reputations for this). The people killed are almost always men. Men are again assumed to be in charge of the families, but their lives are again more risky. In fact, in Europe, the killing of women has generally been seen as dishonorable, so women would sometimes throw themselves between fighting parties to avoid murder from happening.
So in the west, men have usually been in charge, but their lives have always been riskier; with more dangerous jobs, military service, and assumed willingness to risk their lives. And this is not some special case, it probably affects virtually every single family if you go back a couple of decades. In many places (America too, it seems) this assumption is STILL embedded in the laws, while most (all?) restrictions on women have been removed. And men's lives are still shorter. Notice also that certain countries in the West, e.g. Britain, have had quite a few women as rulers. That's because it is not men on top with women at the bottom. It is more like two skewed columns, where royal men are above women, but royal women are above aristocratic men, aristocratic women are above commoner men etc.
The situation is a bit different in some other countries where the situation is weighed more heavily against women, where for instance women are often the first to get killed when honor is at stake. But I often feel that the plight of women in the West has been exaggerated. Still, many changes have been for the better; I think personal freedom is good, rather than your "role" being more set in stone. But I remember someone in a debate comparing the situation of women in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan to Medieval Europe. But then a historian objected and said women in Europe have NEVER been treated like that. He was right.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079342No, that doesn't follow. Rape could very clearly be 'forced'. Snatching my wallet could clearly be 'forced'.
Sexual relations could also be 'coerced'. Taking my wallet could also be 'coerced'.
When you're coerced, you make the decision that you feel gives you the fewest complications you can deal with. Neither one is usually fair, but they are very clearly different.
So you are trying to thread the needle between the parsing of 'coerced' and 'forced'???
Apparently, to you, coerced means that the target has a choice of some sort versus no choice...otherwise my maimed or killed argument still stands.
If I buy that definition then, to be forced, someone would have to be completely incapacitated and incapable of action or choice in the matter???
Explain to me how that aligns with the use of the word 'force' in your earlier reply.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079276We all make choices based on the consequences. If people 'force' you to do things you don't want to do REGULARLY you are a doormat.
Am I a doormat because I am constantly being incapacitated and forced to do things I wouldn't want to do? And how does that relate to the word 'choice' in the preceding sentence about consequences? Or did you just back yourself into a corner and are trying to work your way out by redirecting the conversation towards definitions of words that you yourself apparently used improperly?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079342As for women and Selective Service, it could change (https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Women-And-Draft), but I don't think it is clearly an imposition on men. At the very least, jackasses on the internet keep insisting that because women couldn't register for the draft, and men were required, that men deserve a special status in society. If that's all it's done, it clearly benefits men and not women. Like, obviously.
Ahh...
It IS a redirect. Never mind my questions, then, since you won't give an honest answer to them anyway.
I used 'forced' in quotes because I cannot imagine what you actually mean by it.
If someone does something while you are actively resisting, you are forced. I will also use the term to mean 'a false choice', ie like a card trick where you have to pick the card that they've already chosen for you. The government garnishing your wages is forcing payment. Sending you a tax bill is coercive, but not forced.
OK, I'm wondering at this point how much is just spin doctoring compared to factual disagreement.
Quote from: Shasarak;1079075I think this is a huge point that feminists just gloss over. There was no one going out of their way to "oppress" women, men and women were striving together against crushing poverty to eke out an existence for them and their families.
Quote from: jhkimYour claim is that there was no oppression of women in history. That women and men just worked together.
Quote from: ShasarakNo, I am claiming that there was no one going out of their way to specifically target women for oppression. There were never any roving bands of tyrannical patriarchs scouring the lands looking for women to oppress. Its just a fantasy.
This seems like wordplay to me. So you agree that women were oppressed - just that people did it in place, rather than going out of their way to do it? Obviously, in most times it wasn't a political cause to suppress women's rights - because that was the status quo. People would just do things the way they always had, which was that women had low status without political, economic, or religious power.
Quote from: jhkimYeah, sure, and nobles and serfs just worked together to do what was best for everyone. The nobles protected them, and the serfs made sure everyone got fed.
That's nonsense.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1079306It's not entirely nonsense. The serfs and nobles had a symbiotic relationship - an especially close one when looking at local nobles (aka, not kings and princes). The nation only held together if both nobles and serfs kept their side of the social bargain. Of course, plenty of nobles abused their power horrifically, and that was the common cause of rebellions.
...
Quote from: Trond;1079352You're both dancing around a subject that it seems you don't want to deal with. Men have usually been in charge, but it comes at a price, and often a steep one. Men's lives have always been riskier, even if you take into consideration things like the risk of childbirth in the past. My grandparents were in many ways fairly traditional, with the women generally assumed to be staying at home, though there were some options. My grandfather worked hard as a mason, and it made him permanently sick at one point. He also had to fight in WWII, was captured by the Nazis, and they hanged some of his inmates in front of him (most likely he was spared because he looked like such an "aryan" specimen). Men were generally assumed to be in charge, but at their home this was not always the case (as a personal observation). Anyway I don't think the women would have swapped places if they could.
On the one hand, there were down sides to being in charge. Absolutely, the nobles had some problems that serfs did not, and men had problems that women did not. But I disagree that this meant there was some sort of equality, and that people would willingly choose lower status.
Stories like The Prince and the Pauper and The Taming of the Shrew are about how people are really happiest in their natural place, but those are just stories. In actuality, if people had a choice - yes, they would most often choose to be the higher status. Historical women would wish for a son far more than they would wish for a daughter. This is frequently attested to in historical accounts that I've read.
As for lifespan, it's not clear to me that men's lives were riskier given childbirth, at least not as a major effect across all times and places. For example, in 1850, American men's life expectancy was 38 compared to 40 for women, which is pretty comparable. For broader history, it's difficult to generalize - but here's one survey study on the subject, for example:
QuoteNevertheless, numerous signs indicate that female mortality exceeded male mortality during most of the history of the human species. In Greece from about 3,500 to 1,150 B.c. and again from 1,200 to 150 B.C., according to Hishinuma, male life expectancy was found to be above female levels at all ages from birth through the "upper adult" years of those eras. During the earlier of the two periods, the size of the excess was about three years at age zero, rising to about eight years at age 18 and then decreasing to two years at age 56. During the second period, the excess was again three years at birth, increasing to about eight years at ages 10-18, and then declining before seemingly disappearing at age 56. In both, the peak excess of male over female life expectancy appears to have occurred shortly before or early into the childbearing years, a reflection of the enormous toll of maternal mortality.
Source: https://www.soa.org/library/research/transactions-of-society-of-actuaries/1989/january/tsa89v414.pdf
Obviously, across all of history there will be a ton of variance. But mostly, I think the lifespans are comparable rather than significantly favoring women.
I just want to thank S'mon here - Even though we disagree on some points, I appreciate that you pull in real historical information, and note differences in women's status between different societies.
Quote from: ShasarakWhy are men out labouring in the fields, the forests, the mines? Because their muscles are stronger then womens muscles, it is not oppression it is biology.
Quote from: S'monI've read more than once that in most African societies women do 80% of the agricultural work... although the men are stronger. So there is definitely a cultural element too. Or at least a non-muscle element!
Quote from: Shasarak;1079321When we were Hunter-Gatherers the women used to do the Gathering because the men were doing the Hunting. Maybe that is the case in Africa?
Quote from: S'mon;1079329These are farming cultures. The San/Bushmen hunter-gatherers are actually one of the more egalitarian societies.
I think S'mon has a strong point here that there are important cultural factors. There are biological concerns - especially around childbirth - but women's status and rights do differ between different historical societies.
Quote from: jhkim;1079372On the one hand, there were down sides to being in charge. Absolutely, the nobles had some problems that serfs did not, and men had problems that women did not. But I disagree that this meant there was some sort of equality, and that people would willingly choose lower status.
It depends on what you mean by equality. Men could not take on an equal share of gestaing and giving birth to children, it was biologically impossible. But women could have taken on their fair share of devastatingly hard work and soldering. But they didn't. If a man takes on the majority of these responsibilities, he needs consumate authorities to execute those responsibilities. Women's authority tended towards the household, where their roles were needed.
It is an odd sort of oppression where the oppressors are expected to labor and die for the oppressed. The most famous example is in the demographics of the survivors of the Tianic.
(https://i.imgur.com/6wffSf0.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic
Quote from: jhkim;1079372This seems like wordplay to me. So you agree that women were oppressed - just that people did it in place, rather than going out of their way to do it? Obviously, in most times it wasn't a political cause to suppress women's rights - because that was the status quo. People would just do things the way they always had, which was that women had low status without political, economic, or religious power.
I dont know how to explain it more simply. Yes women were oppressed. Men were oppressed. Children were oppressed. Christians were oppressed. Jews were oppressed. Muslims were oppressed. Underwater basket weavers were oppressed.
There is literally no bottom, it is oppression all the way down.
Quote from: jhkim;1079374I think S'mon has a strong point here that there are important cultural factors. There are biological concerns - especially around childbirth - but women's status and rights do differ between different historical societies.
http://geography.name/gender-roles-and-sexuality/
QuoteEarly theories about biological and social development in humans stressed the importance of meat eating and of men's roles as hunters. Today, however, researchers know that women were the primary economic producers in many early societies. Between 60 and 80 percent of the calories consumed by people in the existing hunting-and-gathering societies come from the fruits, roots, grains, nuts, honey, and other foods gathered by women.
This pattern did not change after agriculture took hold across most of Africa. Women today perform between 60 and 80 percent of the continent's agricultural labor. Throughout most of rural Africa, their roles in farming differ from men's, a fact that is illustrated by the way particular tools are associated with gender. The ax is considered a man's tool because men clear and prepare the land. They also plow the fields. The hoe is reserved for women, who plant, harvest, process, and store the crops. Women are also responsible for most tasks involved in producing food for families, including obtaining water and firewood, often across long distances.
So it looks like this article supports both my proposition as well as S'mon's; women do 60 to 80% of the labour and men do the physical plowing and preparation of the land.
Jhkim, it's as if you're constantly sidestepping what I'm actually talking about. I wasn't talking about the difficulties of nobles vs serfs or if someone would choose to be a serf. I was talking about my grandmothers :D. And no, those couple of years in the 1800s are not insignificant at a time when men supposedly held all the cards, it's a 5% longer life for women. So again, the plight of women in the west of the past is not completely made up, but it is frequently exaggerated. As for ancient Greece, well that's known to have been a pretty bad time and place for women, except for certain areas such as Sparta, but it sort of illustrates my point about before vs after Christianity in Europe. Conditions generally got better with the development of western chivalry.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079276I wasn't forced to do Selective Service. I opted to do so.
...
And of course, if I chose NOT to register, there were potential consequences, but nobody FORCED me to do it.
Failing to register or comply with the Military Selective Service Act is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 or a prison term of up to five years, or a combination of both.
Yes you were FORCED to register for Selective Service. This is the essence of the concept of government force.
You don't opt out of paying taxes, nor do you just opt out of following burglary or murder laws.
Quote from: Trond;1079389As for ancient Greece, well that's known to have been a pretty bad time and place for women, except for certain areas such as Sparta
(edited for initial misreading)
Yes, other Greeks regarded Spartan women as having uncommonly high status - one of the weird things about the Dorian Greeks (eg Spartans) from the POV of the Ionian Greeks (the Athenians, and the other Greek cultures of Homer's pre-Dorian Invasion
Iliad/Siege of Troy). It's in Athens that Pericles said a good woman is one who stays silent! Whereas a man was expected to actively contribute to politics.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079342As for women and Selective Service, it could change (https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Women-And-Draft), but I don't think it is clearly an imposition on men.
You are only looking through our modern post-Vietnam filter.
Look up the death stats from the Korean and Vietnam wars. Those were our last wars primarily fought by men instead of machines, and the men were drafted, not volunteers. The numbers (on both sides) were brutal. Most of our losses were young men who didn't want to go, but got drafted and thrown into a meatgrinder...and the drafted were FORCED to go or be imprisoned.
As wars become more mechanized with robotic combatants and satellite-assisted vehicles, of course the Selective Service requirement becomes less important and/or less gender focused as both men and women can desk jockey drones.
Selective Service was not an imposition to YOU because of WHEN you were born. No other reason.
I was at UCLA during Iraq 1 and people forget now how the MSM was howling Bush 1 was going to start Vietnam 2e. Fortunately for us 18-22 year old males, Bush 1 went with blitzkrieg instead, perhaps because of his own military service.
If Iraq had gone sideways and there was a draft, no women would have served, but my ass might have been in the sand trying not to suck down Saddam's chemical weapons (from his old USA gift stockpile!).
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079378It is an odd sort of oppression where the oppressors are expected to labor and die for the oppressed.
LOL. So true and it all comes down to the Magical Power of Pussy.
Which is also the reason for modern male support of feminism. Men desperately want wet dick and women have always controlled the sex faucet.
White knights want to posture about their moral virtue and egalitarian intellect, but its all laughable bullshit. Males in 2019 AD aren't any different than males in 2019 BC. Civilization is a thin veneer over ancient biological needs and imperatives, all controlled by chemicals deep in our brains.
Chemicals, not thoughts, platitudes or indoctrination.
Quote from: Trond;1079389Jhkim, it's as if you're constantly sidestepping what I'm actually talking about. I wasn't talking about the difficulties of nobles vs serfs or if someone would choose to be a serf. I was talking about my grandmothers :D. And no, those couple of years in the 1800s are not insignificant at a time when men supposedly held all the cards, it's a 5% longer life for women. So again, the plight of women in the west of the past is not completely made up, but it is frequently exaggerated. As for ancient Greece, well that's known to have been a pretty bad time and place for women, except for certain areas such as Sparta, but it sort of illustrates my point about before vs after Christianity in Europe. Conditions generally got better with the development of western chivalry.
As for being frequently exaggerated - people get history wrong all the time, in many different directions. Sure, the plight of women is often exaggerated, as is the plight of men. Regarding life expectancy, it is not uniform across regions and periods. For example, the following is from an analysis of the adult deaths of 115,650 nobles in Europe from 800 to 1800. The fitted difference in years between male and female life expectancy is listed as D_female.
[table=class: grid, align: left]
[tr][th]Year[/th][td]800-1000[/td][td]1000-1340[/td][td]1340-1500[/td][td]1500-1600[/td][td]1600-1700[/td][td]1700-1800[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]D_female[/th][td]+3.1[/td][td]+0.9[/td][td]-0.5[/td][td]-0.4[/td][td]+0.1[/td][td]+2.5[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/lifespans-of-the-european-elite-8001800/BE252C4B25C4AAC29ED62D591A1675AC/core-reader
According to this, from 1340 to 1600, noble women had lower life expectancy as well as lower status. From the claims about how men have been dying in droves, I would expect a more significant and consistent difference. And this goes counter to your claim about chivalry - since the code of chivalry developed around 1200, and the lifespan of women in this sample went *down* after that, and didn't start to rise until centuries later.
As for Christianity more broadly, I think the answer is more mixed. Personally, I'd say Christian Europe was on average better for women than other large civilizations - notably Islam, China, and India. But that isn't the whole story. S'mon and I at least agree that in Northern Europe, the status of women went notably down after Christianization. Women in Iceland could own their own property in the pre-Christian period and had leadership roles attested to in the sagas, but afterwards could only act through their father, husband, or son. Around the Mediterranean, it did go up in some cases, but not all.
The short form - history is complicated. Purely one-sided simple political narratives tend not to fit the data.
Quote from: jhkim;1079412S'mon and I at least agree that in Northern Europe, the status of women went notably down after Christianization.
Even that is probably a bit over-simplistic - or, to put it another way, a
generalisation! :D I think it depends on a lot of factors, such as who the woman was, her social status. I think for instance that women low down the social ladder in pagan Northern Europe may have benefited from Christianisation, along with lower social status men. Whereas women of high social status could face increased restrictions.
I think in pagan northern Europe there was probably more scope to be a Xena Warrior Princess skull-cracking leader type, than after Christianisation. Whereas if you were a slave girl Christianisation may have meant being raped a bit less. Maybe you even got to be a serf.
Quote from: jhkim;1079412As for being frequently exaggerated - people get history wrong all the time, in many different directions.
One of the problems is that history of the period records the lives of the 1%. For example, while arranged marriage was an obsession of the European noble class, it wasn't at all common among the peasants.
Quote from: S'mon;1079415Even that is probably a bit over-simplistic - or, to put it another way, a generalisation! :D I think it depends on a lot of factors, such as who the woman was, her social status. I think for instance that women low down the social ladder in pagan Northern Europe may have benefited from Christianisation, along with lower social status men. Whereas women of high social status could face increased restrictions.
I think in pagan northern Europe there was probably more scope to be a Xena Warrior Princess skull-cracking leader type, than after Christianisation. Whereas if you were a slave girl Christianisation may have meant being raped a bit less. Maybe you even got to be a serf.
I agree with you that it's a generalization - but it's what we have to go on. I only know for sure about Iceland because of reading that sagas - plus confirming information from archeology. And yes, the sagas are mostly about high-class women - though there are some notable slave girls that feature as well. (Though the main one I recall was actually high-born before she became a slave.) There is less data on lower-class women as well as less data on most other places in Northern Europe - but lack of data is lack of data. It doesn't show anything either way.
I'm not sure how to judge there being less rape of slave girls.
One common misconception is stereotypes about what early Christianity was like - that it meant jumping to 20th century Christian behavior, which of course isn't true. For example, I recall that one of the early advocates of Christianity in Iceland killed a man for insulting Christianity, was outlawed, left the country for years, then came back and killed another man for insulting his religion. How actual Christians behaved was often at odds with the teachings of Christ, in every era of history. Even centuries later, slave girls were regularly raped by their Christian masters. Sadly, it took a very long time for abolition to become a mainstream force within Christianity.
In short, Christianity may well have had a positive influence on slaves in Northern Europe, but I don't take it as a given.
Quote from: jhkim;1079412The short form - history is complicated. Purely one-sided simple political narratives tend not to fit the data.
Exactly.
Quote from: jhkim;1079425In short, Christianity may well have had a positive influence on slaves in Northern Europe, but I don't take it as a given.
My feeling is that the church pretty consistently took an "all people have inherent dignity" approach, from way back, and that this likely had some effect on moderating behaviour. In the 6th century Codex Justinian it calls slavery "Against the Law of God/Nature, though part of the Law of Men". In pre-Christian Northern European cultures, people have dignity or worth on account of their behaviour and status - a free man or woman has worth, if they act bravely and honourably. Thralls & slaves do not.
My impression from everything I've read is that the Christian church consistently disapproved of slavery, but initially saw it in "Render unto Caesar" type terms as an inevitable part of the Fallen secular world, thus trying to abolish it was beyond the church's remit. The abolishment of slavery in England following conquest by the secular Normans was a secular project and seems due to economics rather than morality. But once slavery had fallen into disuse in western Europe, after its revival as racial slavery in the Age of Exploration it became practical for the church to actively campaign against it.
Quote from: jhkim;1079412As for being frequently exaggerated - people get history wrong all the time, in many different directions. Sure, the plight of women is often exaggerated, as is the plight of men. Regarding life expectancy, it is not uniform across regions and periods. For example, the following is from an analysis of the adult deaths of 115,650 nobles in Europe from 800 to 1800. The fitted difference in years between male and female life expectancy is listed as D_female.
[table=class: grid, align: left]
[tr][th]Year[/th][td]800-1000[/td][td]1000-1340[/td][td]1340-1500[/td][td]1500-1600[/td][td]1600-1700[/td][td]1700-1800[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]D_female[/th][td]+3.1[/td][td]+0.9[/td][td]-0.5[/td][td]-0.4[/td][td]+0.1[/td][td]+2.5[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/lifespans-of-the-european-elite-8001800/BE252C4B25C4AAC29ED62D591A1675AC/core-reader
According to this, from 1340 to 1600, noble women had lower life expectancy as well as lower status. From the claims about how men have been dying in droves, I would expect a more significant and consistent difference. And this goes counter to your claim about chivalry - since the code of chivalry developed around 1200, and the lifespan of women in this sample went *down* after that, and didn't start to rise until centuries later.
As for Christianity more broadly, I think the answer is more mixed. Personally, I'd say Christian Europe was on average better for women than other large civilizations - notably Islam, China, and India. But that isn't the whole story. S'mon and I at least agree that in Northern Europe, the status of women went notably down after Christianization. Women in Iceland could own their own property in the pre-Christian period and had leadership roles attested to in the sagas, but afterwards could only act through their father, husband, or son. Around the Mediterranean, it did go up in some cases, but not all.
The short form - history is complicated. Purely one-sided simple political narratives tend not to fit the data.
Well, that's interesting. The data goes a bit counter to some earlier sources, as you probably know since you looked it up, but also some of what people in medieval times said themselves (some noted that women live longer). The rate of violence was high with corresponding high death rates among men. Anyway, the paper does give one of the main reasons for the high mortality rate of noble women in the period you mention: "Surprisingly, it appears that noble women faced an increased probability of a plague death." The plague hit hard in the 1300s and kept coming back for several centuries in Europe but started receding in the 1600s. Maybe women were supposed to take care of the sick, and so were more exposed? Still, the overall curve for the whole period under study shows women's peak death year a little above 70, while that of men is a little above 60.
But what I said about chivalry and higher status for women is not something I simply claim. It's covered in books on Medieval times, such as Bishop's classic "The Middle Ages". Other more specialized books, for instance on tournaments and jousting, mention similar things; women were not allowed to attend earlier, but as chivalry developed they were present with their own pavilion, and frequently picked the winner.
Where do you have the notion from that women in Northern Europe lost their rights to own property? It does not seem to be the case in Norway. The reason we know women had property in the viking age is basically because of evidence from stories and graves showing women with property. How do we know that they didn't end up with their property the same way powerful medieval women did (by being widowed or the lack of male heirs, or sometimes simply manipulating the system)? I have seen a trend towards exaggerating the status of viking women (women warriors etc.) but viking society was in many ways hyper-masculine. I have seen people talk about Icelandic "viking law" which was in fact Christian medieval law extrapolated backwards. For instance, people have often referred to extremely strict Icelandic laws about rape, but those were in fact from Christian medieval times. Things were generally less organized during the time of the vikings (perhaps with the exception of the kingdom of Harald Fairhair, who had a reputation for being extremely harsh). Most likely individual viking chieftains made up their laws as they went. I think they avenged rape with a family vendetta.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079008Historical oppression affected everyone.
Name one legal right in the west, especially America, that men have and women don't.
Men have the legal right to custody of their children, but the courts are biased against them. So women having all the legal rights as men doesn't really mean anything.
In theory a homeless person has the same rights as Bill Gates, but a millionaire is always going to get lighter sentencing because they have the resources to take full advantage of the system.
I think that narratives affect how a society focuses its resources. The narrative that men are inherently violent means that male victims of domestic violence, and prisoners don't get as much help as they need because they are seen as a disposable resource. Narratives about women mean that they are denied different kinds of resources.
Any discussion of "vikings" should limit the block of years and named countries. Are we talking about the 8th or 12th century? Iceland, Finland or Russia? Even the terms pre-Christian and post-Christian don't hold up well without being more exact in time/place.
Kinda like "Ancient China" or "Ancient Egypt" (though now you're talking 1000s, not 100s of years).
I ran across this little tid bit of information the other day, more than 90% of work related deaths occur to men. In 2017 there were 5147 worker deaths reported, 4761 (92.5%) were men vs 386 (7.5%) women. 5.8 men and 0.6 women die per 100,000 worker hours. The numbers do not change significantly over the years.
Work related homicides are included, not just accidents. Looking specifically at homicides there is still a 6-1 ratio although homicides do account for the second largest single cause of women's workplace deaths most years (slightly edged out by transportation accidents), and is #5 for men.
24% of the work related homicides against women were committed by a relative or partner vs only 2% for men.
Source Bureau of Labor Statistics
2017
https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0319.htm
Compiled data 2003-2017
https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi-chart-data-2017.htm
Quote from: Spinachcat;1079543Any discussion of "vikings" should limit the block of years and named countries. Are we talking about the 8th or 12th century? Iceland, Finland or Russia? Even the terms pre-Christian and post-Christian don't hold up well without being more exact in time/place.
Kinda like "Ancient China" or "Ancient Egypt" (though now you're talking 1000s, not 100s of years).
"Vikings" to me means Norwegians, Danes, and Swedes (and their immediate colonies) about 800-1050 AD. I don't think we will get very far if we limit ourselves more, since the sources aren't that detailed. A lot of it comes from the Norwegians who settled on Iceland. But most researchers seem to think the culture(s) of those areas were rather similar anyway.
Quote from: Verdant;1079542Men have the legal right to custody of their children, but the courts are biased against them. So women having all the legal rights as men doesn't really mean anything.
In theory a homeless person has the same rights as Bill Gates, but a millionaire is always going to get lighter sentencing because they have the resources to take full advantage of the system.
I think that narratives affect how a society focuses its resources. The narrative that men are inherently violent means that male victims of domestic violence, and prisoners don't get as much help as they need because they are seen as a disposable resource. Narratives about women mean that they are denied different kinds of resources.
Just so. Narratives are magnitudes more powerful than facts. The trick is to have the facts and a compelling narrative to hang them on.
Quote from: jhkim;1079425One common misconception is stereotypes about what early Christianity was like - that it meant jumping to 20th century Christian behavior, which of course isn't true. For example, I recall that one of the early advocates of Christianity in Iceland killed a man for insulting Christianity, was outlawed, left the country for years, then came back and killed another man for insulting his religion. How actual Christians behaved was often at odds with the teachings of Christ, in every era of history. Even centuries later, slave girls were regularly raped by their Christian masters. Sadly, it took a very long time for abolition to become a mainstream force within Christianity.
When the church was sending missions to convert Northern Europe to Christianity the priests found it more effectively to adapt Christian stories to fit what the local populous wanted to hear. For example, Jesus died for our sins, but his spirit then stormed Hell like a warrior king, setting free many Old Testament heroes (I think Adam and Eve were smoking one there) and delivering them to heaven.
The plus of Christianity (and for that matter, Buddhism, too) is that 'mercy' is considered a virtue in those beliefs, and was exactly the thing the populous
wanted from their ruling classes, which historically showed little propensity towards it.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1079403Which is also the reason for modern male support of feminism. Men desperately want wet dick and women have always controlled the sex faucet.
This is false.
Obviously, if women were controlled in a form of sexual slavery a la 'The Handmaid's Tale', men would generally have more sex. For myself, personally, any statements I make on this website will have no positive impact on the amount of sex I have. It's possible to believe that people are people and they deserve consideration without regard to sex. There are children who have not yet developed sexual urges who understand that treating people as equals is the right thing to do. This is just a cynical attempt to discredit anyone who advocates for equality by assigning them repugnant motives.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079637This is false.
Obviously, if women were controlled in a form of sexual slavery a la 'The Handmaid's Tale', men would generally have more sex. For myself, personally, any statements I make on this website will have no positive impact on the amount of sex I have. It's possible to believe that people are people and they deserve consideration without regard to sex. There are children who have not yet developed sexual urges who understand that treating people as equals is the right thing to do. This is just a cynical attempt to discredit anyone who advocates for equality by assigning them repugnant motives.
While Spinachcat puts a coarse edge to it, I do think that modern male feminists are simply playing a role that men have played since forever. Protecting the women. In the modern age, what they're protecting and why have become much more abstract.
Ironically, this keeps women in a subservient role to men. As long as women are not expected to take on male types of responsibility, they will never achieve male types of authority. (As a group, individual exceptions have always existed.(
Quote from: Lynn;1079636When the church was sending missions to convert Northern Europe to Christianity the priests found it more effectively to adapt Christian stories to fit what the local populous wanted to hear. For example, Jesus died for our sins, but his spirit then stormed Hell like a warrior king, setting free many Old Testament heroes (I think Adam and Eve were smoking one there) and delivering them to heaven.
This is true. For instance, the Norse were sold a version of Jesus called "White Christ" (Kvitekrist), who was far more hard core than Jesus himself.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079638While Spinachcat puts a coarse edge to it, I do think that modern male feminists are simply playing a role that men have played since forever. Protecting the women. In the modern age, what they're protecting and why have become much more abstract.
The basis for your claim appears suspect. Do you have any evidence that this is what is happening? I'm not trying to protect women; I'm making it clear that I stand with them. Equal rights and equal opportunity have as much to do with enlightened self-interest as any chivalrous inclination I have. My wife works and she earns as much as I do; you can be sure that I'm interested in 'gender equity' pay raises for concrete reasons that don't involve 'white knighting'.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079638Ironically, this keeps women in a subservient role to men. As long as women are not expected to take on male types of responsibility, they will never achieve male types of authority. (As a group, individual exceptions have always existed.(
I also disagree with this. If admitting that gender bias exists only 'keeps women subservient', and refusing to admit gender bias exists 'keeps women subservient', then you might as well try the first one. Even if it doesn't WORK, it's at least trying something DIFFERENT.
There are many examples (https://www.striking-women.org/module/women-and-work/inter-war-years-1918-1939) of women entering the work force and being successful; and just as many examples of people trying to keep them from doing so. It took a lot of coordinated action to get to a place where legally women have the same rights as men (generally); now it's a matter of making sure that those rights are enforced. You can bet that there are people who don't believe that women should have the same rights as men (or blacks as whites, or whatever), but that's not the law of the land. Enforcing those laws means ending illegal discrimination. Much of that discrimination is carefully hidden (for example, not releasing aggregate pay data), and some of that is the result of implicit bias.
Quote from: jhkim;1079412As for being frequently exaggerated - people get history wrong all the time, in many different directions. Sure, the plight of women is often exaggerated, as is the plight of men. Regarding life expectancy, it is not uniform across regions and periods. For example, the following is from an analysis of the adult deaths of 115,650 nobles in Europe from 800 to 1800. The fitted difference in years between male and female life expectancy is listed as D_female.
[table=class: grid, align: left]
[tr][th]Year[/th][td]800-1000[/td][td]1000-1340[/td][td]1340-1500[/td][td]1500-1600[/td][td]1600-1700[/td][td]1700-1800[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]D_female[/th][td]+3.1[/td][td]+0.9[/td][td]-0.5[/td][td]-0.4[/td][td]+0.1[/td][td]+2.5[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/lifespans-of-the-european-elite-8001800/BE252C4B25C4AAC29ED62D591A1675AC/core-reader
According to this, from 1340 to 1600, noble women had lower life expectancy as well as lower status. From the claims about how men have been dying in droves, I would expect a more significant and consistent difference. And this goes counter to your claim about chivalry - since the code of chivalry developed around 1200, and the lifespan of women in this sample went *down* after that, and didn't start to rise until centuries later.
Quote from: Trond;1079480Well, that's interesting. The data goes a bit counter to some earlier sources, as you probably know since you looked it up, but also some of what people in medieval times said themselves (some noted that women live longer). The rate of violence was high with corresponding high death rates among men. Anyway, the paper does give one of the main reasons for the high mortality rate of noble women in the period you mention: "Surprisingly, it appears that noble women faced an increased probability of a plague death." The plague hit hard in the 1300s and kept coming back for several centuries in Europe but started receding in the 1600s. Maybe women were supposed to take care of the sick, and so were more exposed? Still, the overall curve for the whole period under study shows women's peak death year a little above 70, while that of men is a little above 60.
I suspect sources at the times were talking about the tail end of old age rather than true survival statistics. i.e. More women lived to be 70 or 80 than men. That's still true in the 21st century - and the causes remain unclear.
Men did have more violent deaths, but women still had some violent death plus death in childbirth - which seems to roughly balanced out. The ages of death are a little different as a result, hence the different shapes of the curves, but overall it was not significantly safer to be a woman than a man.
Quote from: Trond;1079480Where do you have the notion from that women in Northern Europe lost their rights to own property? It does not seem to be the case in Norway. The reason we know women had property in the viking age is basically because of evidence from stories and graves showing women with property. How do we know that they didn't end up with their property the same way powerful medieval women did (by being widowed or the lack of male heirs, or sometimes simply manipulating the system)? I have seen a trend towards exaggerating the status of viking women (women warriors etc.) but viking society was in many ways hyper-masculine. I have seen people talk about Icelandic "viking law" which was in fact Christian medieval law extrapolated backwards. For instance, people have often referred to extremely strict Icelandic laws about rape, but those were in fact from Christian medieval times. Things were generally less organized during the time of the vikings (perhaps with the exception of the kingdom of Harald Fairhair, who had a reputation for being extremely harsh). Most likely individual viking chieftains made up their laws as they went. I think they avenged rape with a family vendetta.
The difference in Iceland is that we have the testimony of the historical sagas, which is largely backed up by the archeological evidence. These don't describe warrior women, but they do describe high-status women leaders like the matriarch Unn the Deep-Minded and others who participated in the warlike culture. This is consistent with the burial and other archeological evidence.
One of the themes of the sagas - which were written in fixed form post-Christianity - is the contrast of the willful pagan women with good obedient Christian women. For example, a core story of the Vinland saga is the contrast between the bad pagan woman Freydis with the good woman Gudrid who later converted to Christianity. In sagas like the Laxdaela Saga, pagan women are portrayed as having their own property rights (though not political rights).
Also, it is notable that prior to Christianity, women had positions as spiritual leaders. There were priestesses and prophetesses as a regular position. That declined under Christianity.
Christianity did bring many benefits, but in this case, the status of women declined overall.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079669The basis for your claim appears suspect. Do you have any evidence that this is what is happening? I'm not trying to protect women; I'm making it clear that I stand with them. Equal rights and equal opportunity have as much to do with enlightened self-interest as any chivalrous inclination I have. My wife works and she earns as much as I do; you can be sure that I'm interested in 'gender equity' pay raises for concrete reasons that don't involve 'white knighting'.
It's just an idea based on observations. Note that a huge ass chunk of feminist talking points revolve around protection and provision. (Pay gap, rape, domestic violence) and I'd even make the attempt to broaden the definition of "provision", to encompass rights and opportunites, as men search for something to provide for women who have less and less need for direct provision from men.
QuoteI also disagree with this. If admitting that gender bias exists only 'keeps women subservient', and refusing to admit gender bias exists 'keeps women subservient', then you might as well try the first one. Even if it doesn't WORK, it's at least trying something DIFFERENT.
There are many examples (https://www.striking-women.org/module/women-and-work/inter-war-years-1918-1939) of women entering the work force and being successful; and just as many examples of people trying to keep them from doing so. It took a lot of coordinated action to get to a place where legally women have the same rights as men (generally); now it's a matter of making sure that those rights are enforced. You can bet that there are people who don't believe that women should have the same rights as men (or blacks as whites, or whatever), but that's not the law of the land. Enforcing those laws means ending illegal discrimination. Much of that discrimination is carefully hidden (for example, not releasing aggregate pay data), and some of that is the result of implicit bias.
The idea of implicit bias has come under scrutiny lately. (https://qz.com/1144504/the-world-is-relying-on-a-flawed-psychological-test-to-fight-racism/)
And while I'm not in favor of compelling anyone to disclose their income information, it might reveal some interesting data. (https://www.msn.com/en-ae/money/topstories/google-reviewed-pay-equity-and-learned-it-was-underpaying-men/ar-BBUnX0V)
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079676It's just an idea based on observations.
Counterpoint... Maintaining your opinion means willfully ignoring data points that run contrary to it. Effectively you're cherry picking data and only accepting that which reinforces your preconceived notions. That's bad science.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079676Note that a huge ass chunk of feminist talking points revolve around protection and provision. (Pay gap, rape, domestic violence) and I'd even make the attempt to broaden the definition of "provision", to encompass rights and opportunites, as men search for something to provide for women who have less and less need for direct provision from men.
So what do you think are APPROPRIATE talking points? The US Declaration of Independence frames life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights. I think if women were arguing about the availability of hot coffee that the stakes were a little too low.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079676The idea of implicit bias has come under scrutiny lately. (https://qz.com/1144504/the-world-is-relying-on-a-flawed-psychological-test-to-fight-racism/)
It's good that these things are coming under scrutiny. That doesn't mean they don't exist. My wife works as a university professor. I see reviews for her and her peers. At the University level, there is a gap in student evaluations between male and female professors after controlling for other factors. Some of the things that male professors are extolled for tend to be vilified when they come from a woman. Of course, I don't have to use her experience or example - in the business world I've seen leaders who were decisive, tough, driven, exacting aggressive and competitive. In a man that is often seen as leadership; in a woman that is often described as bitchiness.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079676And while I'm not in favor of compelling anyone to disclose their income information, it might reveal some interesting data. (https://www.msn.com/en-ae/money/topstories/google-reviewed-pay-equity-and-learned-it-was-underpaying-men/ar-BBUnX0V)
I think that aggregate data should be available. In this specific case, Google has
not been transparent; there have been accusations that their methodology is flawed. In fact, Google admitted that they were only looking at one kind of pay equity:
QuoteBarbato addressed other factors in the blog post, saying, "Our pay equity analysis ensures that compensation is fair for employees in the same job, at the same level, location and performance. But we know that's only part of the story. Because leveling, performance ratings and promotion impact pay, this year, we are undertaking a comprehensive review of these processes to make sure the outcomes are fair and equitable for all employees."
The US Department of Labor is currently investigating Google for systemically underpaying female employees (https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/8/15229688/department-of-labor-google-gender-pay-gap).
Of course, if past is precedent, you'll ignore counter examples and choose to only accept sources that feed your 'gut' feeling.
Meanwhile, we're still two weeks out from Equal Pay Day (https://www.pay-equity.org/day.html).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079669There are many examples (https://www.striking-women.org/module/women-and-work/inter-war-years-1918-1939) of women entering the work force and being successful; and just as many examples of people trying to keep them from doing so. It took a lot of coordinated action to get to a place where legally women have the same rights as men (generally); now it's a matter of making sure that those rights are enforced. You can bet that there are people who don't believe that women should have the same rights as men (or blacks as whites, or whatever), but that's not the law of the land. Enforcing those laws means ending illegal discrimination. Much of that discrimination is carefully hidden (for example, not releasing aggregate pay data), and some of that is the result of implicit bias.
Do you know why much of the discrimination is hidden? Because there is no top down discrimination, it is just individuals making their own individual decisions and the other people getting upset because more women dont want to work as loggers or garbage collectors.
Hidden discrimination give me a break.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079683Counterpoint... Maintaining your opinion means willfully ignoring data points that run contrary to it. Effectively you're cherry picking data and only accepting that which reinforces your preconceived notions. That's bad science.
I'm not following you. Which data are you referring to?
QuoteSo what do you think are APPROPRIATE talking points? The US Declaration of Independence frames life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights.
I think if women were arguing about the availability of hot coffee that the stakes were a little too low.
Amusingly, that was actually a thing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_coffeehouses_in_the_17th_and_18th_centuries)
QuoteIt's good that these things are coming under scrutiny. That doesn't mean they don't exist. My wife works as a university professor. I see reviews for her and her peers. At the University level, there is a gap in student evaluations between male and female professors after controlling for other factors. Some of the things that male professors are extolled for tend to be vilified when they come from a woman. Of course, I don't have to use her experience or example - in the business world I've seen leaders who were decisive, tough, driven, exacting aggressive and competitive. In a man that is often seen as leadership; in a woman that is often described as bitchiness.
I think that aggregate data should be available. In this specific case, Google has not been transparent; there have been accusations that their methodology is flawed. In fact, Google admitted that they were only looking at one kind of pay equity:
The US Department of Labor is currently investigating Google for systemically underpaying female employees (https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/8/15229688/department-of-labor-google-gender-pay-gap).
Of course, if past is precedent, you'll ignore counter examples and choose to only accept sources that feed your 'gut' feeling.
Meanwhile, we're still two weeks out from Equal Pay Day (https://www.pay-equity.org/day.html).
Well, you got spicy really quick. In honor of Equal Pay Day, I'll link to Warren Farrell's work on the topic.
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/1542751292
It may shine a light on "Pay Inequality".
Quote from: jhkim;1079673I suspect sources at the times were talking about the tail end of old age rather than true survival statistics. i.e. More women lived to be 70 or 80 than men. That's still true in the 21st century - and the causes remain unclear.
Men did have more violent deaths, but women still had some violent death plus death in childbirth - which seems to roughly balanced out. The ages of death are a little different as a result, hence the different shapes of the curves, but overall it was not significantly safer to be a woman than a man.
The difference in Iceland is that we have the testimony of the historical sagas, which is largely backed up by the archeological evidence. These don't describe warrior women, but they do describe high-status women leaders like the matriarch Unn the Deep-Minded and others who participated in the warlike culture. This is consistent with the burial and other archeological evidence.
One of the themes of the sagas - which were written in fixed form post-Christianity - is the contrast of the willful pagan women with good obedient Christian women. For example, a core story of the Vinland saga is the contrast between the bad pagan woman Freydis with the good woman Gudrid who later converted to Christianity. In sagas like the Laxdaela Saga, pagan women are portrayed as having their own property rights (though not political rights).
Also, it is notable that prior to Christianity, women had positions as spiritual leaders. There were priestesses and prophetesses as a regular position. That declined under Christianity.
Christianity did bring many benefits, but in this case, the status of women declined overall.
Well, one of those benefits was that certain things, like rape, were punished more harshly, at least in Norway and it seems in Iceland too. And the property thing.....well, they could own property both before and after, and inheritance usually went with the men in either case, so what's the difference?
Yes, I do know some of the archaeological evidence. The Oseberg burial, likely an important noble or queen's grave, is right next to where my brother lives. But I know of rich memorials to christian medieval women too, although Christians generally did not make burial mounds. It is possible that viking women were allowed to be more outspoken, but women were ideally supposed to be chaste and faithful both before and after Christianization (and portraying the others as improper is sort of theme you see in many cultures). According to Jackson Crawford the worst thing you could call a viking man was a sissy and the worst thing you could call a woman was "whore". My suspicion is mostly that things were a bit more touch-and-go before they were Christianized, and after the conversion many things were a bit more set in stone. I suspect that we simply hear less about those wives of the viking men who beat their women if they opened their mouth.
And as for chivalry, I forgot to mention that many of the ideals of that way of thinking came from medieval women.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079685I'm not following you. Which data are you referring to?
Amusingly, that was actually a thing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_coffeehouses_in_the_17th_and_18th_centuries)
Well, you got spicy really quick. In honor of Equal Pay Day, I'll link to Warren Farrell's work on the topic.
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/1542751292
It may shine a light on "Pay Inequality".
Turns out, like every serious multivariate analysis done on the subject, the pay gap is almost entirely illusory.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/04/google-found-its-underpaying-some-men-as-it-studies-wage-equity.html
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079669There are many examples (https://www.striking-women.org/module/women-and-work/inter-war-years-1918-1939) of women entering the work force and being successful; and just as many examples of people trying to keep them from doing so. It took a lot of coordinated action to get to a place where legally women have the same rights as men (generally); now it's a matter of making sure that those rights are enforced. You can bet that there are people who don't believe that women should have the same rights as men (or blacks as whites, or whatever), but that's not the law of the land. Enforcing those laws means ending illegal discrimination. Much of that discrimination is carefully hidden (for example, not releasing aggregate pay data), and some of that is the result of implicit bias.
Workplace rights are set by law, but there is a difference between proactive or coercive enforcement and a system in which everyone has the same rights to pursue remedies. Ability to relatively easily pursue remedies for everyone is fair. But if you assume all members of one group are going to be victimize by another, despite the obvious differences of individuals, then it is discriminatory by whatever class the other group is.
Neither aggregate pay data or results of any test for implicit bias is in fact, discrimination. They are suggestive, but not conclusive - and acting as if they are conclusive seems to me to be a strong reason why there is so little opportunity for agreement.
Quote from: shuddemell;1079753Turns out, like every serious multivariate analysis done on the subject, the pay gap is almost entirely illusory.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/04/google-found-its-underpaying-some-men-as-it-studies-wage-equity.html
Also, there are demographics within the groupings by sex.
http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
Or by profession.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/09/10-jobs-where-women-earn-more-than-men.html
The current "equal pay" push isn't to bring women's pay up, its all about further wage stagnation! It's to decimate anyone's ability to earn more based on achievement and negotiation. Corporations will just use "we can't pay you more than Sally" as an excuse to keep YOU in check. Whether or not you work smarter, faster or better than Sally, you won't be able to demand more...because equality!!
You want a raise? How sexist of you! And we need you to work through lunch because Sally has to leave early for her daughter's recital. Yes I know you worked through all your lunches last week, but Sally's son had the sniffles and we still needed the project finished on deadline. You wouldn't want to jeopardize the company, would you? No, of course you don't qualify for any stock options. That's only upper management.
But hey, if you choose to be a corporate wage slave, that's the tradeoff for a "steady paycheck".
People joke that independent business owners "work 60 hours a week to avoid having a 40 hour job" and there's some truth to that, but the trade off is not being a corporate wage slave. Yes, being independent is really scary and really hard (there are bad months, even bad years), but at some point, "scary and hard" just might be worth keeping your dignity instead of sucking down endless PC bullshit.
So in other words, the cure for being a Beta-male is to nut-up?
An ironic notion is that a culture that was totally egalitarian, neither sex receiving any innate deference, advantage, disadvantage or protection might appear "sexist" to our modern eyes. None of the assumed manner and deference (Ladies First? Why? I got here before her.") no softening of words and critques to spar feeling, no so called gendered insults (It acceptable to call some a dick or a pussy) violence to or by men or women is treated exactly the same etc. I can easily see how this hypothetical culture migt be 'problematic' , at least to the more ardent social justice types that aren't really arguing for equal treatment but special treatment.
Quote from: CarlD.;1080283An ironic notion is that a culture that was totally egalitarian, neither sex receiving any innate deference, advantage, disadvantage or protection might appear "sexist" to our modern eyes. None of the assumed manner and deference (Ladies First? Why? I got here before her.") no softening of words and critques to spar feeling, no so called gendered insults (It acceptable to call some a dick or a pussy) violence to or by men or women is treated exactly the same etc. I can easily see how this hypothetical culture migt be 'problematic' , at least to the more ardent social justice types that aren't really arguing for equal treatment but special treatment.
I think Deadpool joked about something like this. "Wait, is it sexist to beat this evil villain woman or NOT to beat her?"
Quote from: Trond;1080284I think Deadpool joked about something like this. "Wait, is it sexist to beat this evil villain woman or NOT to beat her?"
Amusingly enough, I've seen this argument in real list carried out without a trace of irony and humor more than once. Most recently about Batman and Catwoman. Admittedly it started with a joke (something about Catwoman robbing mainly to cover her medical and dental bills) but spiraled in a 'deep' discussion of sexism and misogyny.
Quote from: CarlD.;1080283An ironic notion is that a culture that was totally egalitarian, neither sex receiving any innate deference, advantage, disadvantage or protection might appear "sexist" to our modern eyes. None of the assumed manner and deference (Ladies First? Why? I got here before her.") no softening of words and critques to spar feeling, no so called gendered insults (It acceptable to call some a dick or a pussy) violence to or by men or women is treated exactly the same etc. I can easily see how this hypothetical culture migt be 'problematic' , at least to the more ardent social justice types that aren't really arguing for equal treatment but special treatment.
This reminds me of someone I know in federal government. Apparently at their agency, there was an effort to try to parallel hiring based on population percentages (ie 'by race / ethnicity', so if one scored too low based on current employees, the 'group' would get more points in the hiring). It was determined very quickly to be a racist policy and discarded. The reason for that is that, some groups that get hired that are far, far proportionately smaller by population were being hugely advantaged by the previous status quo, and are massively over represented in the federal government.
Apparently what is 'fair' means nobody loses anything unless you are white and male.
Quote from: Lynn;1080547This reminds me of someone I know in federal government. Apparently at their agency, there was an effort to try to parallel hiring based on population percentages (ie 'by race / ethnicity', so if one scored too low based on current employees, the 'group' would get more points in the hiring). It was determined very quickly to be a racist policy and discarded. The reason for that is that, some groups that get hired that are far, far proportionately smaller by population were being hugely advantaged by the previous status quo, and are massively over represented in the federal government.
Apparently what is 'fair' means nobody loses anything unless you are white and male.
Still happening. The Federal Government gets it worse than some because those with a "equality agenda" use national numbers not locality based numbers. I did hiring the last 10-12 years of my career with the Feds in a rural area. We would be pressured to meet "targets" based on National numbers, but we were still required to follow the law. As subject matter experts who could recommend hiring we did not get race / gender information so there really wasn't much we could do anyway whether or not we wanted to.
It was no uncommon to have higher management encourage hiring based on names which is of course illegal. It still makes me laugh when I recall a very blond, blue eyed girl with a very black name who got hired because a manager trying to increase her minority numbers and assuming this young woman was black hired her based on her name. She was woefully unqualified and unprepared for the job, but she made a sincere effort.
Eventually they moved from phone interviews to video interviews (face to face interviews are seen as preferential to those not in the local area). It was quite obvious that this change to video interviews was so the hiring officials see the candidates and therefore better discriminate based on race gender. They continued to cut the supervisors out of hiring because we were making merit based decisions, we had to work with these people so we were looking for the best candidates, not playing illegal social engineering games.
It was very frustrating to me, I used to get to develop a lot of new employees many of whom would stay with the agency so I would continue to run into them years later as they moved up the organization. In later years when I no longer had input into who worked for me it became a revolving door and not many stayed. Also funny because as I got less involved, the new hires became whiter and more male because when they took out the supervisors they lost the most effective recruiters. Used to be we could directly talk to potential applicants, and we intimately knew the hiring system so we could help them. When the hiring went completely behind doors in HR all we could do was direct them to a website, it became very impersonal and I think that led to a decline in non-local (more diverse) applicants.
Nationally the USA is 73% White, 17% Hispanic, 12% African American, 6% Other and 5% Asian, 4% 2 or more races (adds up to more than 100% because Hispanic and Mixed race are merged categories).
It isn't too hard for an agency with jobs in San Francisco or Los Angeles to hit numbers close to these for jobs in those locations. Trying to fill a job in Idaho, Maine, Iowa or West Virginia where the local employee pool is 90%+ white it is a lot harder. Even parts of California, once you get out of the major cities the state heavily skews white with many counties in the high 80%, low 90% ranges.
Even if you are able to recruit, retention is poor because they have no local family and in general people like to live around people who look like them. The novelty of being "The Chinese Guy" in a 90% white community wears off very quickly for most even if the locals are polite (and unfortunately in some areas they aren't).
At least with state or local government they are only looking to represent the make up of the state or local area, so they at least in theory have a candidate pool that looks like the local population.
From my personal experience there is a lot of discrimination going on in the name of equality.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079362I used 'forced' in quotes because I cannot imagine what you actually mean by it.
Not like this is a case of SJWs trying to redefine a term (https://www.google.com/search?q=force).
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079378It is an odd sort of oppression where the oppressors are expected to labor and die for the oppressed. The most famous example is in the demographics of the survivors of the Tianic.
(https://i.imgur.com/6wffSf0.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic
And I think this says as much if not more about power and class.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1079559Just so. Narratives are magnitudes more powerful than facts. The trick is to have the facts and a compelling narrative to hang them on.
True.
Quote from: Lynn;1079636The plus of Christianity (and for that matter, Buddhism, too) is that 'mercy' is considered a virtue in those beliefs, and was exactly the thing the populous wanted from their ruling classes, which historically showed little propensity towards it.
In theory.
In practice those in power often redefined what 'mercy' meant, or found situations where everyone agreed it wasn't applicable.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1079683The US Department of Labor is currently investigating Google for systemically underpaying female employees (https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/8/15229688/department-of-labor-google-gender-pay-gap).
Good. Then perhaps they'll also find that Google is
actually underpaying their
male employees (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/google-gender-pay-gap.html).
P.S. Link is to New York Times, which only allows access to a certain number of articles before cutting you off, but I deliberately picked to avoid accusations of bias.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1080657And I think this says as much if not more about power and class.
I disagree. If we look at the percentages, the worst are for men, across the board. You have to get out of the Men category altogether to get to the next worst percentages.
Berth class does seem to be a factor within the specific categories, I'll give you that. Though note that 2nd class children were all saved. (% are not consistently first-second-third) So there might have been some affect of the layout of the ship and how it sank. I'm no expert on the incident, so I can't say for sure.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1080679I disagree. If we look at the percentages, the worst are for men, across the board. You have to get out of the Men category altogether to get to the next worst percentages.
Berth class does seem to be a factor within the specific categories, I'll give you that. Though note that 2nd class children were all saved. (% are not consistently first-second-third) So there might have been some affect of the layout of the ship and how it sank. I'm no expert on the incident, so I can't say for sure.
Look at the number of children and then look at the numbers for women. 3x as many 3rd class children as 2nd class, and 10 as many as 1st class. Terrible to think about, but many were probably babies and small children which can be difficult to control in an emergency. 3rd class women also had a significantly lower survival rate than 1st and 2nd class. Presumably many of the 3rd class children were with their mothers and they simply could not reach the life boats in time.
3rd class was located well below deck, and 3rd class passengers did not have free range of the ship which would limit egress once the abandon ship order was given. Remember that order was delayed until the situation got really bad, because after all the ship was supposed to be unsinkable.
Many lifeboats went unfilled, so it is likely most of the 3rd class women and children lost simply could not reach the boats in time rather than being turned away in favor of the higher social status passengers. Although much is made about there not being enough life boats for all on board, the reality is many life boats went down with the ship because of the delays to evacuate. By the time it was clear that the ship was sinking, many could no longer be launched.
2nd class men is the real oddity with a 92% loss rate, worst of all on board. I'd be really curious about the answer to that one, perhaps men without families as I understand tradition places fathers just below women and children in the pecking order. With so many 3rd class women and children on board it is likely a good number of the 3rd class men were married with children. There were nearly 3x as many 3rd class men as women, but the number saved is nearly identical (75 men, 76 women) while the numbers are vastly different between 1st and 2nd class men and women.
It's good to be a First Class Woman!
The difference between First & Second class children is just that one first class child was lost - clearly the intent was to save all first & second class children.
Quite a lot of discussion in darker corners of the internet regarding the "Women and Children First" policies of the Titanic, and other naval disasters. The fact is many lifeboats were launched with plenty of seats available, not because of 'time' but because men weren't allowed to fill the empty seats. Women died because they wouldn't leave their husbands, and the 'sorting' of people by precedent actually slowed the rate of filling the lifeboats drastically.
I believe I've seen an analysis that showed that most, if not all, the passengers could have gotten aboard life boats if not for the powerful ineffeciencies created by the Women and Children First policy. Its one of those things that sounds really good and noble and honorable and all that in theory, but in practice its a brutal, ugly murderous method of ensuring more death and suffereing all around, even among those it is meant to serve.
Quote from: Spike;1080867I believe I've seen an analysis that showed that most, if not all, the passengers could have gotten aboard life boats
Well there weren't enough life boats for everyone, but certainly more could have been saved; and the disaster did prompt a shift towards keeping families together.
The main beneficiaries though would have been the First & Second class men; the class disparity would have remained, and some Third Class women might have lost out. They needed more life boats as well as quicker & more efficient evacuation.
BTW my relatives were aboard the Herald of Free Enterprise when it sank at Zeebrugge, two of my female cousins drowned along with the elder's fiance. My aunt's (remarried) husband was a hero and apparently saved many lives, such as my aunt and her two surviving children.
While there were not enough lifeboats, the boats they did have were not filled to capacity. This was not the result of inefficiencies in the policy; there was a fear of overloading the boats and causing them to capsize. This would have resulted in even more casualties.
Besides carrying enough craft to save the passengers, crews are now trained in how to fill them to capacity.
Keep in mind that many of the boats were being loaded in a chaotic and changing situation, which also made it difficult to assess and fill the boats to capacity.
An article involving ;toxic masculinity" in a high school (https://s2.washingtonpost.com/11a32fd/5c9ba096fe1ff677b1f46d7a/a2ttZm9zdGVyQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ%3D%3D/7/39/d82a4f76139c8e8d6c0a939f60ae7cb3) (Washington Post) that might be of interest to the this discussion's members.
Quote from: CarlD.;1081107An article involving ;toxic masculinity" in a high school (https://s2.washingtonpost.com/11a32fd/5c9ba096fe1ff677b1f46d7a/a2ttZm9zdGVyQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ%3D%3D/7/39/d82a4f76139c8e8d6c0a939f60ae7cb3) (Washington Post) that might be of interest to the this discussion's members.
I remember we did similar things when I was in high school. I don't think we made a list though but we ranked girls according to looks. The girls would also tease the guys with various ways to "figure out" how well hung they were (measuring their fingers etc.)
While I think the making of an actual list was rude, I do think this was an over-reaction. See e.g. how they go from discussing the insulting parts to this quote, where suddenly it's about "safety":
"We want to know what the school is doing to ensure our safety and security," Schmidt said. I guess the worst thing here is that I have absolutely no reason to think that this sort of outrage will make anyone happier in the long run. People have been getting more and more neurotic. Quotes like the one above make young people feel less safe for all the wrong reasons.
Article's behind a paywall. But I feel secure in assuming the tone from the title.
Having been bullied and generally been an outcast kind of kid, and also dishing it out when I had the chance, I think most kids (and young adults) are horrible, horrible people whose only excuse is that their brains aren't fully developed yet.
Putting this down to "toxic masculinity" is once again an attempt to gender the general phenomenon of children being awful to each other. Like Trond pointed out, girls can be just as, or even worse than, boys.
Quote from: tenbones;1072243Well on the plus side, these weak guy are less likely to procreate and pass on their weak genes. In some respect it's evolution in practice. Except we get the dubious pleasure of listening to those who mewl and *beg* to ask permission for their own existence from those who have no capacity to understand or care. We'll get to watch them wither away as sure as other species die due to lack of desire of self-definition.
So true.
I have often thought that the big reason (puts on his tin foil hat) why this type of thing is happening along with the transgender and furry movements is to get people to stop having kids and weed out the genetically weak. So in other words gents find good breeding females and give them your warrior seed to create a race of super gamer ubermenschen!
Quote from: Trond;1081133I remember we did similar things when I was in high school. I don't think we made a list though but we ranked girls according to looks. The girls would also tease the guys with various ways to "figure out" how well hung they were (measuring their fingers etc.)
While I think the making of an actual list was rude, I do think this was an over-reaction. See e.g. how they go from discussing the insulting parts to this quote, where suddenly it's about "safety":
"We want to know what the school is doing to ensure our safety and security," Schmidt said.
I guess the worst thing here is that I have absolutely no reason to think that this sort of outrage will make anyone happier in the long run. People have been getting more and more neurotic. Quotes like the one above make young people feel less safe for all the wrong reasons.
The rule of thumb appears to be if women do things like rating people based on physical attributes, make sexual jokes, etc they're 'empowered' while men are sexist or misogynist and engaging in toxic masculinity in modern parlance.
Quote from: CarlD.;1081206The rule of thumb appears to be if women do things like (rated based on physical attributes, etc) they're 'empowered" while men are sexist or misogynist and engaging in toxic masculinity in modern parlance.
Yeah, the WaPo is particularly vile, picking on schoolboys for being schoolboys, when they'd be celebrating schoolgirls doing the same to boys.
I don't want to hijack the thread, but I saw this recently and was reminded by the talk of women and children first. It's the origin of the "Birkenhead Drill" and a tale of heroism that I hadn't heard before:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYW49K5nQFA
Quote from: spon;1081247I don't want to hijack the thread, but I saw this recently and was reminded by the talk of women and children first. It's the origin of the "Birkenhead Drill" and a tale of heroism that I hadn't heard before:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYW49K5nQFA
This guy clearly needs to read up on toxic masculinity!
(but seriously, interesting video)
Quote from: Trond;1081262This guy clearly needs to read up on toxic masculinity!
(but seriously, interesting video)
Its ironic how, often in entertainment which does reflect society but in the fun-house mirror way that Internet does, that female characters that behave in way that would be blamed on "toxic masculinity" in a male character are considered strong willed, empowered or at worse, rightfully acerbic.
But then many things have become warped or reinterpreted into negatives in the current era. Look at "Nice guys", what's considered 'stalkerish' (pining from afar when you're too shy to approach the object of your affection Charlie Brown is stalking the Little Red Headed girl) and "rapey" (any overly passionate, spontaneous or seductive sexual or romantic encounter where this isn't an explicit practically legalistic set up of consent usually from the female party, the male's is often assumed though I've seen exceptions.) Even groveling and pleading for pity sex has been called coercive or approaching a woman for sex when she's sexually aroused (thus not in her right mind).
I don't think these are the norms now a days, just some of the extremes things to get pushed too usually in online discussion (probably among people that really need more direct social interaction). I do wonder as more and more humans experience more life online before in reality how this will effect cultures overall in later years.
Quote from: CarlD.;1081644I don't think these are the norms now a days, just some of the extremes things to get pushed too usually in online discussion (probably among people that really need more direct social interaction). I do wonder as more and more humans experience more life online before in reality how this will effect cultures overall in later years.
I recently read an article in The Atlantic on the "sex recession" (decline in frequency of sex and increase in celibate singlehood, especially among younger people). Various explanations were proposed, but one thing that came up in interviews was the change around the norms of asking people out. It's now become so expected that there will be some kind of social media interaction first, that approaching someone directly is now perceived by a lot of people as just inherently creepy, regardless of how politely/tastefully it's done.
Quote from: Dimitrios;1081739I recently read an article in The Atlantic on the "sex recession" (decline in frequency of sex and increase in celibate singlehood, especially among younger people). Various explanations were proposed, but one thing that came up in interviews was the change around the norms of asking people out. It's now become so expected that there will be some kind of social media interaction first, that approaching someone directly is now perceived by a lot of people as just inherently creepy, regardless of how politely/tastefully it's done.
Hm, hints of the future? Social media displacing personal interaction all together? Maybe VR and augmented reality technology will make the difference largely moot anyway. I'm reminded of a "Transhumanist" setting from GURPS where a significant and growing minority of people are product of parents who have been physically in the same room.
Better than the dystopian vision of men forced to where electrical shock rings on their testicles so women can immediately express their displeasure with their male boorishness :D (I'm kidding, of course, just trying to lighten the mood a little :)
Edit: Interestingly, from what I've read hook up are more advantageous to men especially if they're physically attractive but not picky and women who want to get laid without the hassle of an S.O. Brave new world, I guess :)
Quote from: Spike;1080867Quite a lot of discussion in darker corners of the internet regarding the "Women and Children First" policies of the Titanic, and other naval disasters. The fact is many lifeboats were launched with plenty of seats available, not because of 'time' but because men weren't allowed to fill the empty seats. Women died because they wouldn't leave their husbands, and the 'sorting' of people by precedent actually slowed the rate of filling the lifeboats drastically.
I believe I've seen an analysis that showed that most, if not all, the passengers could have gotten aboard life boats if not for the powerful ineffeciencies created by the Women and Children First policy. Its one of those things that sounds really good and noble and honorable and all that in theory, but in practice its a brutal, ugly murderous method of ensuring more death and suffereing all around, even among those it is meant to serve.
Paving the road to hell.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1080919Keep in mind that many of the boats were being loaded in a chaotic and changing situation, which also made it difficult to assess and fill the boats to capacity.
You might not be aware of this, but those are exactly the conditions lifeboats are typically loaded in.
Quote from: Trond;1081133I remember we did similar things when I was in high school. I don't think we made a list though but we ranked girls according to looks.
People were using glow sticks at the event I was just at to do exactly the same thing, only difference being it was LGBT friendly so all genders were game.
...
I can't wait for the robot apocalypse.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1081767People were using glow sticks at the event I was just at to do exactly the same thing, only difference being it was LGBT friendly so all genders were game.
?? Glow sticks? How does that work?
...
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1081767I can't wait for the robot apocalypse.
Enough with the negativity. Not for me. Life is too short anyway. There are books I'd like to read and people I'd like to meet (women mostly, don't tell my wife :D)
Quote from: Trond;1081823There are books I'd like to read and people I'd like to meet (women mostly, don't tell my wife :D)
That reminds me - my game on Sunday, three beautiful women across the table from me, hanging on my every word.
It's good to be the DM. :D
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1081767I can't wait for the robot apocalypse.
Oh, yeah, Mr Roboto on repeat 24/7 :cool:
Quote from: S'mon;1081842That reminds me - my game on Sunday, three beautiful women across the table from me, hanging on my every word.
It's good to be the DM. :D
Dang. I'm too far away to join your campaign. :)
Happy Equal Pay Day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Day)!
Quote from: CarlD.;1081965Happy Equal Pay Day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Day)!
Oh, you!
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1080919While there were not enough lifeboats, the boats they did have were not filled to capacity. This was not the result of inefficiencies in the policy; there was a fear of overloading the boats and causing them to capsize. This would have resulted in even more casualties.
Besides carrying enough craft to save the passengers, crews are now trained in how to fill them to capacity.
Keep in mind that many of the boats were being loaded in a chaotic and changing situation, which also made it difficult to assess and fill the boats to capacity.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1081767You might not be aware of this, but those are exactly the conditions lifeboats are typically loaded in.
You removed most of my quoted statement. Yes, obviously lifeboats are loaded in chaotic situations. Dealing with chaotic situations
requires training. If the situation hadn't been chaotic, I'm sure they would have been able to figure it all out
without training, but that's a lot to ask under pressure.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1081996Oh, you!
The pay gap issue has been a subject that's intrigued me for awhile. I've read good, thoughtful and well considered articles arguing all sides of the issue: that there is a pay gape, that there isn't, that its a product of misreading statistics, its exists but there are reasons others than institutionalized sexism, etc, etc. That its exists and is a sexist artifact, a product of the so called Patriarchy has become such a practical dogma recently that discussion that questions that assumption is pretty thin on the ground these days but I think there is still room for discussion.
Quote from: CarlD.;1082173The pay gap issue has been a subject that's intrigued me for awhile. I've read good, thoughtful and well considered articles arguing all sides of the issue: that there is a pay gape, that there isn't, that its a product of misreading statistics, its exists but there are reasons others than institutionalized sexism, etc, etc. That its exists and is a sexist artifact, a product of the so called Patriarchy has become such a practical dogma recently that discussion that questions that assumption is pretty thin on the ground these days but I think there is still room for discussion.
Single women who have never married earn 98 per cent of what single men who have never married earn. The gender pay gap is almost entirely down to roles in child-rearing, and decisions couples make about work and money once they have kids.
Quote from: Haffrung;1082188Single women who have never married earn 98 per cent of what single men who have never married earn. The gender pay gap is almost entirely down to roles in child-rearing, and decisions couples make about work and money once they have kids.
And never married women who have never had children make more than men, on average, per Warren Farrell, who researched the issue thoroughly. I don't know if my feed is any indication, but when equal pay day was trending on the twitter, there was a lot of pushback with those kinds of sources. And a lot of hard liners who still insist that women are still blatantly and on a huge scale, being paid less for the exact same work, despite being shown evidence that it's not the case.
Remember, female complaints about male behavior are unimpeachable words or hard won wisdom from a group that has been victimized and marginalized everywhere for Millennia. Male complaints about female behavior are driven by sexism at best, more likely by flat out misogyny.
Here is some easy to digest (https://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/) information on the pay gap.
It's a real thing. In an apples to apples comparison, it is starkly obvious.
It is very easy to avoid an apples to apples comparison. It turns out that there is a thing where when women move into an industry broadly, it becomes perceived as a woman's career, and wages fall. When looking at the amount an elementary school teacher makes (male or female), the gap in pay is small (https://www.weareteachers.com/gender-pay-gap-in-education/). Personally, I'd consider a 9% wage cut significant, but that's better than many other industries.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1082241Here is some easy to digest (https://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/) information on the pay gap.
It's a real thing. In an apples to apples comparison, it is starkly obvious.
It is very easy to avoid an apples to apples comparison. It turns out that there is a thing where when women move into an industry broadly, it becomes perceived as a woman's career, and wages fall. When looking at the amount an elementary school teacher makes (male or female), the gap in pay is small (https://www.weareteachers.com/gender-pay-gap-in-education/). Personally, I'd consider a 9% wage cut significant, but that's better than many other industries.
Shall we trade links?
https://iea.org.uk/media/gender-pay-gap-reporting-produces-another-round-of-misleading-statistics/
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1082241Here is some easy to digest (https://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/) information on the pay gap.
It's a real thing. In an apples to apples comparison, it is starkly obvious.
It is very easy to avoid an apples to apples comparison. It turns out that there is a thing where when women move into an industry broadly, it becomes perceived as a woman's career, and wages fall. When looking at the amount an elementary school teacher makes (male or female), the gap in pay is small (https://www.weareteachers.com/gender-pay-gap-in-education/). Personally, I'd consider a 9% wage cut significant, but that's better than many other industries.
I don't know where you live, but in Canada teachers are very well paid. After 10 years, they make 99k in Alberta. Excellent time off and benefits. A guaranteed and generous pension for life that most start taking at 58. It's a very good job. And most of the people who do it are women.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1082250Shall we trade links?
https://iea.org.uk/media/gender-pay-gap-reporting-produces-another-round-of-misleading-statistics/
The introduction to your article says:
Quote from: IEAto illustrate how the crude figures create a misleading picture, especially for companies that have hired large numbers of female staff into lower paid roles
This is the apples/apples comparison I'm talking about. There are multiple issues with gender equity. The first is that women in the same job as men often earn less. Secondly, there is an issue where men are more likely to advance within a company than women, even if the women appear objectively to be more qualified. The article I linked to on teacher pay mentioned a perceived difference between men and women in primary education in terms of deference.
Effectively, your article admits that women are paid less; it just argues that it is justified because they are over-represented in entry-level roles. It does not quantify or even claim it CAN quantify that effect; just implies that it MIGHT be sufficient to explain any difference.
There's a limit to what 'median pay' can tell you - drilling down further into the details is important. But even differences in median pay (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/01/racial-gender-wage-gaps-persist-in-u-s-despite-some-progress/) indicate differences in the way opportunities are presented. This article does break down further and includes similarly qualified individuals (ie, men over 25 with a bachelors degree).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1082292The introduction to your article says:
This is the apples/apples comparison I'm talking about. There are multiple issues with gender equity. The first is that women in the same job as men often earn less. Secondly, there is an issue where men are more likely to advance within a company than women, even if the women appear objectively to be more qualified. The article I linked to on teacher pay mentioned a perceived difference between men and women in primary education in terms of deference.
The article also says.
QuoteProblems with the pay gap reporting measures
No like-for-like comparisons
The government's reporting measures do not take into account key differentials, such as job, background, education or degree level, age, or years of experience
The measures do not distinguish between full-time workers and part-time workers
They do not take into account 'number of hours worked', which renders the bonus pay gap statistics meaningless
And then link to a PDF with a list of their sources.
https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Pay-Gap-Reporting-2019-FINAL.pdf
I find it most interesting that when challenged, proponents of the "wage gap" fall back on other means to "justify" the difference, but from the very article you linked to-
QuoteIf women were paid what men were paid, women would gain billions in earnings every year.
If women were paid what men were paid, they would also be putting in the same hours (https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/time-spent-working-by-full-and-part-time-status-gender-and-location-in-2014.htm), and working the same job (https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/how-come-nobody-talks-about-the-gender-workplace-death-gap/)s. But this article blatantly gets that part dead wrong.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1082241Here is some easy to digest (https://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/) information on the pay gap.
It's a real thing. In an apples to apples comparison, it is starkly obvious.
It is very easy to avoid an apples to apples comparison. It turns out that there is a thing where when women move into an industry broadly, it becomes perceived as a woman's career, and wages fall. When looking at the amount an elementary school teacher makes (male or female), the gap in pay is small (https://www.weareteachers.com/gender-pay-gap-in-education/). Personally, I'd consider a 9% wage cut significant, but that's better than many other industries.
How do you explain that the Uber pay algorithm discriminates against women (https://www.aei.org/publication/the-gender-pay-gap-for-uber-drivers-can-be-completely-explained-by-three-factors-and-not-discrimination/) and it does not even know the sex of the person that it is paying.
That is as apples to apples as any other study that you are going to be able to find.
Quote from: Shasarak;1082305How do you explain that the Uber pay algorithm discriminates against women (https://www.aei.org/publication/the-gender-pay-gap-for-uber-drivers-can-be-completely-explained-by-three-factors-and-not-discrimination/) and it does not even know the sex of the person that it is paying.
That is as apples to apples as any other study that you are going to be able to find.
I'd agree that it's an interesting data point - but I think that shows quite the opposite of what you're saying. The earnings gap among Uber drivers is only 7%. That's quite small compared to the earnings gap in many industries and in the country as a whole, which is more like 15-20%. If women had a 7% earnings gap overall, that would be huge progress.
A general issue I have with many claims is imagining that the gender earnings gap is some kind of universal constant across all places and industries, and must be either purely discrimination or purely personal choices. That simply doesn't make sense. If one study find gender gap in one industry and city, and another finds no gender gap in another industry and city - those aren't contradicting each other. They can both be true. Men and women in different places and industries may make different choices - and they may experience different forms of discrimination.
Quote from: jhkim;1082325I'd agree that it's an interesting data point - but I think that shows quite the opposite of what you're saying. The earnings gap among Uber drivers is only 7%. That's quite small compared to the earnings gap in many industries and in the country as a whole, which is more like 15-20%. If women had a 7% earnings gap overall, that would be huge progress.
What do you mean that it shows the opposite of what I am saying? The gender blind computer algorithm results in men getting paid more then women. How do you explain that. You can not just try to sweep it under the carpet by saying that its only 7% more.
QuoteA general issue I have with many claims is imagining that the gender earnings gap is some kind of universal constant across all places and industries, and must be either purely discrimination or purely personal choices. That simply doesn't make sense. If one study find gender gap in one industry and city, and another finds no gender gap in another industry and city - those aren't contradicting each other. They can both be true. Men and women in different places and industries may make different choices - and they may experience different forms of discrimination.
There are so many factors that determine how much money someone gets paid that trying to tie it all into gender is ridicullous at best.
Fun Fact: One industry where women consistently make more than men of porn performer.
No real evidence of wage gap or systemic discrimination against women as far as pay goes. It would be more useful to actually fight real discrimination in this world rather than tilting at imaginary windmills. It should also be noted that the assumption that any disparity is due to discrimination is wildly inaccurate. All multivariate analysis of this issue debunk this notion as there are a whole host of factors which affect rate of pay which have absolutely nothing to due with systemic sexism.
https://fee.org/articles/harvard-study-gender-pay-gap-explained-entirely-by-work-choices-of-men-and-women/?fbclid=IwAR3i7nmEB-wkcTOHNwW2rSyUYt-yNY9oz-0aS_fWR2JAUCFNRskXWJhMf5M
Quote from: Shasarak;1082332What do you mean that it shows the opposite of what I am saying? The gender blind computer algorithm results in men getting paid more then women. How do you explain that. You can not just try to sweep it under the carpet by saying that its only 7% more.
One might opine that the uber data is free of human bias that may magnify the reporting of the "wage gap".
Quote from: jhkimI'd agree that it's an interesting data point - but I think that shows quite the opposite of what you're saying. The earnings gap among Uber drivers is only 7%. That's quite small compared to the earnings gap in many industries and in the country as a whole, which is more like 15-20%. If women had a 7% earnings gap overall, that would be huge progress.
Quote from: Shasarak;1082332What do you mean that it shows the opposite of what I am saying? The gender blind computer algorithm results in men getting paid more then women. How do you explain that. You can not just try to sweep it under the carpet by saying that its only 7% more.
I haven't read the actual paper yet (it's pay to read), but I'm fine to temporarily assume that the 7% difference is caused by gender blind causes like driver preferences.
Numbers matter. You can't just ignore that it's 7% and not 1% or 30%.
If we take that this 7% figure represents the gender-blind results of women's choices in the U.S., then that would imply that the *rest* of the national earnings gap (8% to 13%) are caused by something other than gender-blind choices.
Now, we can't actually assume that, because we don't know that Uber drivers are representative of the larger workforce. It's very difficult to prove anything for sure in the national data, but the collection of multiple studies across different industries does become suggestive. Most of the studies that I've seen have shown similar results, though. Roughly half of the national pay gap is from gender-blind choices, but that leaves the other half.
As far as proving discrimination absolutely, it's pretty difficult to do so. There are always going to be some differences on average between men and women, which can be used to explain the gap. A good case for showing discrimination is in gender-blind trials. In most, but not all, of cases where gender-blind trials are done - the study has shown evidence of some bias against women. So, for example, many orchestras changed to auditioning musicians playing behind a screen, so judges could not see the sex or race of the candidate. That saw a major rise in number of women and minorities hired. However, there is plenty of potential for discrimination in places other than the hiring step - plus in most industries, it really isn't practical to have gender-blind trials like this.
I think the Uber article doesn't support your point as well as you think.
First off, there exists both OVERT discrimination and discrimination resulting from IMPLICIT BIAS. If we determine that men and women enter the workforce in roughly equal numbers and men and women make roughly the same amount of money until she has children, in which case the wages begin to diverge, there's a real question about equitable division of labor.
I know for my wife's job, after having a child you're permitted a semester off if you're the primary caregiver. A number of men have availed themselves of this perk even though they were not the primary caregiver. This allows the men to complete more work and potentially advance their career faster than a woman who uses the benefit as intended.
Quote from: jhkim;1082371I haven't read the actual paper yet (it's pay to read), but I'm fine to temporarily assume that the 7% difference is caused by gender blind causes like driver preferences.
Numbers matter. You can't just ignore that it's 7% and not 1% or 30%.
If we take that this 7% figure represents the gender-blind results of women's choices in the U.S., then that would imply that the *rest* of the national earnings gap (8% to 13%) are caused by something other than gender-blind choices.
That is tautological.
QuoteNow, we can't actually assume that, because we don't know that Uber drivers are representative of the larger workforce. It's very difficult to prove anything for sure in the national data, but the collection of multiple studies across different industries does become suggestive. Most of the studies that I've seen have shown similar results, though. Roughly half of the national pay gap is from gender-blind choices, but that leaves the other half.
As far as proving discrimination absolutely, it's pretty difficult to do so. There are always going to be some differences on average between men and women, which can be used to explain the gap. A good case for showing discrimination is in gender-blind trials. In most, but not all, of cases where gender-blind trials are done - the study has shown evidence of some bias against women. So, for example, many orchestras changed to auditioning musicians playing behind a screen, so judges could not see the sex or race of the candidate. That saw a major rise in number of women and minorities hired. However, there is plenty of potential for discrimination in places other than the hiring step - plus in most industries, it really isn't practical to have gender-blind trials like this.
https://medium.com/@jsmp/orchestrating-false-beliefs-about-gender-discrimination-a25a48e1d02
Such a snappy title.
QuoteSo, in conclusion, this study presents no statistically significant evidence that blind auditions increase the chances of female applicants. In my reading, the unadjusted results seem to weakly indicate the opposite, that male applicants have a slightly increased chance in blind auditions; but this advantage disappears with controls.
I'm surprised no one's posted this yet.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolyncenteno/2019/04/03/what-if-toxic-masculinity-is-the-reason-for-climate-change/#1cad183437e4
Quote from: Haffrung;1082188Single women who have never married earn 98 per cent of what single men who have never married earn. The gender pay gap is almost entirely down to roles in child-rearing, and decisions couples make about work and money once they have kids.
The problem with any fact supporting this is that if you focus only on outcomes and not causes, then the facts are treated as irrelevant. The outcome-focused views cause correction as discriminatory rather than 'having my cake and eating it.'
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1082372I think the Uber article doesn't support your point as well as you think.
First off, there exists both OVERT discrimination and discrimination resulting from IMPLICIT BIAS. If we determine that men and women enter the workforce in roughly equal numbers and men and women make roughly the same amount of money until she has children, in which case the wages begin to diverge, there's a real question about equitable division of labor.
I know for my wife's job, after having a child you're permitted a semester off if you're the primary caregiver. A number of men have availed themselves of this perk even though they were not the primary caregiver. This allows the men to complete more work and potentially advance their career faster than a woman who uses the benefit as intended.
The overt discrimination is overwhelmingly against men in the West. I know a lot of people will look at me as if I'm crazy when I say stuff like that, but I trust my own eyes. I have been to meetings where people are bending over backwards to hire women, forming task groups designed to accommodate women in tech or this and that, keep women in the short lists of people for higher positions etc etc. I've seen objections against good candidates like "but the two most highly qualified people are white men, and we have been told to show that we have diversity in mind" leading to unqualified people being considered instead. I have seen no similarly overt discrimination like this against women, and to be frank, it would seem cartoonish and absurd. This sort of thing has turned into a never-ending drone from certain politicians and lots of the media, and I think many people are sick and tired of it. It's not even new, I have seen similar talking points since at least the 70s. Sadly, when the backlash came, it came in the form of Donald Trump (I honestly think he fell backwards into this goldmine simply by being the only candidate who didn't give a damn about political correctness).
Quote from: jhkim;1082371I haven't read the actual paper yet (it's pay to read), but I'm fine to temporarily assume that the 7% difference is caused by gender blind causes like driver preferences.
Numbers matter. You can't just ignore that it's 7% and not 1% or 30%.
If we take that this 7% figure represents the gender-blind results of women's choices in the U.S., then that would imply that the *rest* of the national earnings gap (8% to 13%) are caused by something other than gender-blind choices.
That's not who it works. It represents the gap between men and women in Uber. It could be smaller in other work paces, but it could be a larger percentage, but for similar reasons. I suspect that men have more ways to earn more in more complex jobs.
There are some reasons why men earn more that I thought should be pretty obvious. Sometimes I wonder if people (not talking about Jhkim specifically here) are being deliberately obtuse. There are several reasons why men have extra incentives to earn more. To me it has always been obvious. Let's see if anybody can guess what I'm getting at.
Regarding demonstrations of discrimination,
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1082374https://medium.com/@jsmp/orchestrating-false-beliefs-about-gender-discrimination-a25a48e1d02
Such a snappy title.
This is a blog post from a biologist, Pallesen, pulling out a few tables from the paper and trying to come to the opposite conclusion of the paper's authors. In particular, the biologist appears to completely ignore the discussion of the different data sets. Pallesen reads Table 4 and concludes
So, this table unambigiously shows that men are doing comparatively better in blind auditions than in non-blind auditions. The exact opposite of what is claimed. (from your link)
If one reads the text of the article, though, it notes and analyzes this. The problem with raw data is that the sample of musicians who come to a blind audition is different than people who come to a non-blind audition. The paper authors, Goldin and Rouse, found was that more women came to blind auditions, including women who are less qualified. As they report (from the paper):
In Table 5 we report audition success statistics, by round and overall, for musicians who appear more than once in our sample and for whom at least one audition (or round) was blind and one was not blind. The evidence tells a very different story from that in Table 4, and taken together they suggest that blind auditions expanded the pool of female applicants to include more who were less qualified. When we limit the sample to those who auditioned both with and without a screen, the success rate for women competing in blind auditions is almost always higher than in those that were not blind. (from the cited paper (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.90.4.715))
Ultimately, one can always find someone to dispute any paper. There are qualified scientists who dispute evolution. The problem that I prefer to avoid is deciding on a conclusion, and then only believing posts that follow that conclusion.
The solution I prefer to follow is *peer review science*. It's not a perfect solution, but IMO it's better than any other process out there. Peer reviewed papers are more reliable than blog posts, and the mainstream of peer reviewed papers is better than a single peer-reviewed paper. Particularly given that Pallesen doesn't seem to address the text of the paper, I don't take his non-peer-reviewed blog post over Goldin and Rouse's paper.
Quote from: Trond;1082392The overt discrimination is overwhelmingly against men in the West. I know a lot of people will look at me as if I'm crazy when I say stuff like that, but I trust my own eyes. I have been to meetings where people are bending over backwards to hire women, forming task groups designed to accommodate women in tech or this and that, keep women in the short lists of people for higher positions etc etc.
And here's where we get into the problem of anecdotal evidence. I know of tons of people - including most of the women I know - who come to the opposite conclusion. Especially when we're looking for 10 - 20% type effects across a wide range of industries, people will often have very different experiences, which can all be true.
I don't know what industry you're in, Trond, but it could well be that in your meetings, there was bias in favor of women. Conversely, the women I know could also be right in saying that there was bias against them in their careers. Again, this is why I favor peer-reviewed studies and analysis over just going with my gut.
Quote from: jhkim;1082401Regarding demonstrations of discrimination,
This is a blog post from a biologist, Pallesen, pulling out a few tables from the paper and trying to come to the opposite conclusion of the paper's authors. In particular, the biologist appears to completely ignore the discussion of the different data sets. Pallesen reads Table 4 and concludes So, this table unambigiously shows that men are doing comparatively better in blind auditions than in non-blind auditions. The exact opposite of what is claimed. (from your link)
If one reads the text of the article, though, it notes and analyzes this. The problem with raw data is that the sample of musicians who come to a blind audition is different than people who come to a non-blind audition. The paper authors, Goldin and Rouse, found was that more women came to blind auditions, including women who are less qualified. As they report (from the paper): In Table 5 we report audition success statistics, by round and overall, for musicians who appear more than once in our sample and for whom at least one audition (or round) was blind and one was not blind. The evidence tells a very different story from that in Table 4, and taken together they suggest that blind auditions expanded the pool of female applicants to include more who were less qualified. When we limit the sample to those who auditioned both with and without a screen, the success rate for women competing in blind auditions is almost always higher than in those that were not blind. (from the cited paper (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.90.4.715))
Ultimately, one can always find someone to dispute any paper. There are qualified scientists who dispute evolution. The problem that I prefer to avoid is deciding on a conclusion, and then only believing posts that follow that conclusion.
The solution I prefer to follow is *peer review science*. It's not a perfect solution, but IMO it's better than any other process out there. Peer reviewed papers are more reliable than blog posts, and the mainstream of peer reviewed papers is better than a single peer-reviewed paper. Particularly given that Pallesen doesn't seem to address the text of the paper, I don't take his non-peer-reviewed blog post over Goldin and Rouse's paper.
And here's where we get into the problem of anecdotal evidence. I know of tons of people - including most of the women I know - who come to the opposite conclusion. Especially when we're looking for 10 - 20% type effects across a wide range of industries, people will often have very different experiences, which can all be true.
I don't know what industry you're in, Trond, but it could well be that in your meetings, there was bias in favor of women. Conversely, the women I know could also be right in saying that there was bias against them in their careers. Again, this is why I favor peer-reviewed studies and analysis over just going with my gut.
Did they tell you that somebody (in Europe or North America) said "sorry, we need to hire more men, not women?" Because that's what I call overt sexism.
Quote from: jhkim;1082401This is a blog post from a biologist, Pallesen, pulling out a few tables from the paper and trying to come to the opposite conclusion of the paper's authors. In particular, the biologist appears to completely ignore the discussion of the different data sets. Pallesen reads Table 4 and concludes So, this table unambigiously shows that men are doing comparatively better in blind auditions than in non-blind auditions. The exact opposite of what is claimed. (from your link)
Do you think being a biologist disqualifies him in some way from critiquing their research methods? Or is this an appeal to authority?
QuoteIf one reads the text of the article, though, it notes and analyzes this. The problem with raw data is that the sample of musicians who come to a blind audition is different than people who come to a non-blind audition. The paper authors, Goldin and Rouse, found was that more women came to blind auditions, including women who are less qualified. As they report (from the paper): In Table 5 we report audition success statistics, by round and overall, for musicians who appear more than once in our sample and for whom at least one audition (or round) was blind and one was not blind. The evidence tells a very different story from that in Table 4, and taken together they suggest that blind auditions expanded the pool of female applicants to include more who were less qualified. When we limit the sample to those who auditioned both with and without a screen, the success rate for women competing in blind auditions is almost always higher than in those that were not blind. (from the cited paper (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.90.4.715))
He also makes the observation that the paper in one table only uses
three audtitons as a sample size. This is a far cry from the assertation you made in your previous post.
QuoteSo, for example, many orchestras changed to auditioning musicians playing behind a screen,
Now, "many" is a very vague term. Did you mean three or five or a hundred?
QuoteThe sample sizes are small, and the proportions vary wildly, indicating that the results are not significant. No p-values are listed in the table. I calculated a Fisher's exact test for the largest category (hired) and got a p-value of 0.28, far from the significance limit of 0.05.
The analysis is limited by having only 1–3 orchestras of the blind / non-blind type depending on the category. So even if there was clear discrimination, this could be caused by very few people.
QuoteUltimately, one can always find someone to dispute any paper. There are qualified scientists who dispute evolution.
Now this is a an attempt to associate the rebuttal with evolution denial. Your attempts to use such tactics are noted.
QuoteThe problem that I prefer to avoid is deciding on a conclusion, and then only believing posts that follow that conclusion.
I do not claim to believe anything. I present the blog as a rebuttal. Your objections are noted. Perhaps his conclusions are wrong. I am not a statician or any kind of researcher, and so perhaps his criticisms are flawed, and I lack the expertise to detect that. The same can be said for the original study. IE I do not know if their methods are sound, either.
QuoteThe solution I prefer to follow is *peer review science*. It's not a perfect solution, but IMO it's better than any other process out there. Peer reviewed papers are more reliable than blog posts, and the mainstream of peer reviewed papers is better than a single peer-reviewed paper. Particularly given that Pallesen doesn't seem to address the text of the paper, I don't take his non-peer-reviewed blog post over Goldin and Rouse's paper.
So, what did you determine about the peer review status of the original paper?
Oh, and the blogging biologist DOES address table 5 too. Discussing some of the very objections presented by Jhkim. Either way, using this specific article to claim sexism in hiring is fishy as hell given how weak and contradictory the data actually are. And I heard them discussing this very paper on the radio as if it were gospel.
I (also a biologist btw) once looked at a similarly sloppy article about false rape accusations on a university campus. They simply could not accept that false accusations sometimes happen more than some people would like to admit, so they did not compare like with like in their analysis.
Again in my experience (take it or leave it) there are some results that many publishers do not want to see in print, even if academic studies remain rigorous in other fields.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1082372I think the Uber article doesn't support your point as well as you think.
Because....?
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1082378I'm surprised no one's posted this yet.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolyncenteno/2019/04/03/what-if-toxic-masculinity-is-the-reason-for-climate-change/#1cad183437e4
You know we never suffered from climate change before Feminism. Coincidence? o_O
Quote from: jhkimThe problem that I prefer to avoid is deciding on a conclusion, and then only believing posts that follow that conclusion.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1082404I do not claim to believe anything. I present the blog as a rebuttal. Your objections are noted. Perhaps his conclusions are wrong. I am not a statician or any kind of researcher, and so perhaps his criticisms are flawed, and I lack the expertise to detect that. The same can be said for the original study. IE I do not know if their methods are sound, either.
I apologize if I was putting words into your mouth. Thank you for expressing doubt. I'm decently skilled at statistics in general, but this isn't my field - and I think it is good to have some doubt about any single paper particularly in the social sciences (including economics).
Quote from: jhkimThe solution I prefer to follow is *peer review science*. It's not a perfect solution, but IMO it's better than any other process out there. Peer reviewed papers are more reliable than blog posts, and the mainstream of peer reviewed papers is better than a single peer-reviewed paper. Particularly given that Pallesen doesn't seem to address the text of the paper, I don't take his non-peer-reviewed blog post over Goldin and Rouse's paper.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1082404So, what did you determine about the peer review status of the original paper?
The paper was published in the American Economic Review, which as far as I can tell is a respectable peer-reviewed journal. There is a well-sourced Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Economic_Review) that cites a number of distinctions.
Again, it's one paper about a particular effect in a particular field. It doesn't make conclusions about the gender earnings gap on the national scale - which is very difficult to interpret given limited data.
Quote from: jhkim;1082325A general issue I have with many claims is imagining that the gender earnings gap is some kind of universal constant across all places and industries, and must be either purely discrimination or purely personal choices. That simply doesn't make sense. If one study find gender gap in one industry and city, and another finds no gender gap in another industry and city - those aren't contradicting each other. They can both be true. Men and women in different places and industries may make different choices - and they may experience different forms of discrimination.
While this is true, it is deceptive in the sense that one can NEVER glean specific instances from statistics (particularly in the social "sciences"), only the likelihood of that being an issue in a particular case. As such we are limited to using statistics to make general assumptions about the overall situation, not to address specific situations. What this does speak to is the idea of a systemic bias in hiring which obviously does not exist. Individual instances of sexism (both male and female) do exist, but evidence tells us that they are not a systemic issue but rather one offs that need to be treated individually, for which laws and processes are already in place to address.
Quote from: jhkim;1082325A general issue I have with many claims is imagining that the gender earnings gap is some kind of universal constant across all places and industries, and must be either purely discrimination or purely personal choices. That simply doesn't make sense. If one study find gender gap in one industry and city, and another finds no gender gap in another industry and city - those aren't contradicting each other. They can both be true. Men and women in different places and industries may make different choices - and they may experience different forms of discrimination.
While this is true, it is deceptive in the sense that one can NEVER glean specific instances from statistics (particularly in the social "sciences"), only the likelihood of that being an issue in a particular case. As such we are limited to using statistics to make general assumptions about the overall situation, not to address specific situations. What this does speak to is the idea of a systemic bias in hiring which obviously does not exist. Individual instances of sexism (both male and female) do exist, but evidence tells us that they are not a systemic issue but rather one offs that need to be treated individually, for which laws and processes are already in place to address.
Quote from: shuddemell;1082485What this does speak to is the idea of a systemic bias in hiring which obviously does not exist. Individual instances of sexism (both male and female) do exist, but evidence tells us that they are not a systemic issue but rather one offs that need to be treated individually, for which laws and processes are already in place to address.
It is neither obvious that a systemic issues does not exist, nor does it follow that the laws we have are adequate to address 'individual cases'.
Quote from: Trond;1082396There are several reasons why men have extra incentives to earn more. To me it has always been obvious. Let's see if anybody can guess what I'm getting at.
PUSSY!!!
And BOOBIES!!!
And competition for dominance.
It always boils down to biology. Can't fuck with that reptilian brain stem.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1082568PUSSY!!!
And BOOBIES!!!
And competition for dominance.
It always boils down to biology. Can't fuck with that reptilian brain stem.
Uh......yes. I was thinking "women like men with money and resources" as the answer but I think we agree :D
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1082497It is neither obvious that a systemic issues does not exist, nor does it follow that the laws we have are adequate to address 'individual cases'.
It would be highly surprising for it to exist and yet no statistical evidence of it be found. As for the laws, that is a different discussion, as I would submit it is due to lax enforcement rather than lack of laws, but that is a supposition open to debate.
Quote from: TrondThere are several reasons why men have extra incentives to earn more. To me it has always been obvious. Let's see if anybody can guess what I'm getting at.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1082568PUSSY!!!
And BOOBIES!!!
And competition for dominance.
It always boils down to biology. Can't fuck with that reptilian brain stem.
This seems rather contradictory, though. You're trying to say that men are driven by their reptilian brain stem impulses to work more than women - but conversely, that there's no way that men would *discriminate* against women, and that of course they're completely fair and unbiased in how they treat women in the workplace.
If the reptilian brain stem really is that important, then I would argue that it's likely to cause *both* greater struggle for dominance among men, *and* discrimination against women.
And all of this is a theoretical argument. How much of this is reality is about measuring workplace behaviors and motivations. It's a fundamentally very difficult to demonstrate what people's motivations and behaviors are.
Quote from: jhkim;1082699And all of this is a theoretical argument. How much of this is reality is about measuring workplace behaviors and motivations. It's a fundamentally very difficult to demonstrate what people's motivations and behaviors are.
And yet wiykd you dismiss the work of people like Thomas Sowell, and other economists that have answered this question over 40-years ago during the 80's? And it's been verified over and over that the wage gap, once you take into consideration the work habits of men and women and their chocies - backed up as recently as this very decade in Norther European nations where they actively pursue the Equaniminity Agenda, shows when left to their own choices women gravitate towards other less lucrative and competitive jobs than men?
Men are wired to compete. Women are less so. There are exceptions to the rule. This seems to be the point where your quote is appropriate but it doesn't acknowledge the larger established truth.
Unless you're insuating that *men* have some idiotic drive to work against their own interests at scake? Sorry I don't buy that. In fact there is ZERO evidence of that. If this is your contention and it were true - we likely wouldn't even have civilization above the standard of your average jungle tribe.
Quote from: jhkim;1082699If the reptilian brain stem really is that important, then I would argue that it's likely to cause *both* greater struggle for dominance among men, *and* discrimination against women.
Eh... men are more likely to keep OTHER MEN down. MEN are the sexual competition for MEN. Women are more likely to keep other women down, likewise.
I'm just grateful for both my gay male mentors! #NoHomo :D
Quote from: tenbones;1082701Norther European nations where they actively pursue the Equaniminity Agenda
Damn, I wish we really did have an Equaniminity Agenda! Things would be so much more relaxed! :D
Quote from: jhkim;1082699If the reptilian brain stem really is that important, then I would argue that it's likely to cause *both* greater struggle for dominance among men, *and* discrimination against women.
Wouldn't it stand to reason, then, that men would employ more women and less men?
Quote from: kythri;1082706Wouldn't it stand to reason, then, that men would employ more women and less men?
IME that's exactly what happens - and straight women tend to employ men.
Only homosexual-dominated organisations are likely to create self-sustaining employment lines, especially lesbians I think. And lesbians are fairly rare so there's a limit to how much that can happen.
Quote from: tenbones;1082701Men are wired to compete. Women are less so. There are exceptions to the rule. This seems to be the point where your quote is appropriate but it doesn't acknowledge the larger established truth.
I don't think that genetic wiring is the main explanation for the gender wage gap. For example, in South Korea, the gender wage gap is 35% compared to the OECD average of 13% (source (https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/gender-wage-gap.htm)). I don't think that this reflects Korean men and women being wired differently - I strongly suspect that it is mainly environmental factors rather than genetic that are driving that.
More generally, there is a wide range of different gender wage gaps in different countries. I'll buy that a genetic effect exists, but I suspect that most of that variation between countries is about social differences - not genetic differences.
That is open to debate, of course. Like most Nature vs Nurture arguments, it's difficult to prove either way.
Quote from: jhkim;1082699This seems rather contradictory, though. You're trying to say that men are driven by their reptilian brain stem impulses to work more than women - but conversely, that there's no way that men would *discriminate* against women, and that of course they're completely fair and unbiased in how they treat women in the workplace.
If the reptilian brain stem really is that important, then I would argue that it's likely to cause *both* greater struggle for dominance among men, *and* discrimination against women.
And all of this is a theoretical argument. How much of this is reality is about measuring workplace behaviors and motivations. It's a fundamentally very difficult to demonstrate what people's motivations and behaviors are.
If men are competing for dominance in the workplace then why would they only compete against men? Logically they woul compete against everyone in the workplace and therefore if there is any discrimination then it would be against everyone.
Quote from: Shasarak;1082713If men are competing for dominance in the workplace then why would they only compete against men? Logically they woul compete against everyone in the workplace and therefore if there is any discrimination then it would be against everyone.
Quote from: jhkimIf the reptilian brain stem really is that important, then I would argue that it's likely to cause *both* greater struggle for dominance among men, *and* discrimination against women.
Logically (the only reason I care about this argument): these are not mutually exclusive statements. Both can be true without excluding the other. You could discriminate against everyone and discriminate more against a particular group. It does not follow that if some quantifiable thing is applied to every group that it is always applied evenly, which seems to be an assumed axiom in the argument for "...it would be against everyone," otherwise that statement, logically, adds no value to the argument.
Quote from: jhkim;1082699This seems rather contradictory, though. You're trying to say that men are driven by their reptilian brain stem impulses to work more than women - but conversely, that there's no way that men would *discriminate* against women, and that of course they're completely fair and unbiased in how they treat women in the workplace.
If the reptilian brain stem really is that important, then I would argue that it's likely to cause *both* greater struggle for dominance among men, *and* discrimination against women.
And all of this is a theoretical argument. How much of this is reality is about measuring workplace behaviors and motivations. It's a fundamentally very difficult to demonstrate what people's motivations and behaviors are.
I didn't take that "reptilian" part very seriously, TBH. But yes, many men do know that earning more money will get them more women, or it will get them more attention from women in general so it's easier to pick the woman they want. The incentives aren't exactly the same the other way round.
Quote from: Trond;1082845The incentives aren't exactly the same the other way round.
I don't know that this is true, and I'd appreciate some citations. It has been my observation that well-to-do women typically marry well-to-do men, and well-to-do men typically play around with poor women but seldom tie the knot. Having money and a successful career
as a woman is a good way to be more successful/raise healthier children/find a more attractive/powerful husband. And if we are talking reptilian brains, there is NO difference between men and women.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1082882I don't know that this is true, and I'd appreciate some citations. It has been my observation that well-to-do women typically marry well-to-do men, and well-to-do men typically play around with poor women but seldom tie the knot. Having money and a successful career as a woman is a good way to be more successful/raise healthier children/find a more attractive/powerful husband. And if we are talking reptilian brains, there is NO difference between men and women.
Affluent men don't often marry poor women, but they do often marry middle-class women who earn less than they do. Male doctors marry nurses. Male executives marry HR professionals. Male accountants marry payroll clerks.
The reverse is much less common. I'd wager the average salary of the spouses of female doctors is substantially higher than the average salaries of the spouses of male doctors. In fact, I'd bet a third or so of the spouses of male doctors don't work at all, while I'd be shocked if that held true for the spouses of female doctors.
Women have a strong preference, regardless of their own income, to partner with a man who makes as much or more than they make. To the extent that they'll typically go without a partner at all - even raise children without a partner - in preference to partnering with a low-income, low-status man. Which is one of the reasons marriage has collapsed and single-parent families have become the norm among the working class.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1082882I don't know that this is true, and I'd appreciate some citations. It has been my observation that well-to-do women typically marry well-to-do men, and well-to-do men typically play around with poor women but seldom tie the knot. Having money and a successful career as a woman is a good way to be more successful/raise healthier children/find a more attractive/powerful husband. And if we are talking reptilian brains, there is NO difference between men and women.
One source is "Biological Anthropology" By Stanford et al. (4th ed).
What on earth are you basing that bolded part on?
Quote from: Trond;1082892What on earth are you basing that bolded part on?
Feelz? :D
Re reptilian brain, a female friend of mine who'd been 'happy slapped' marvelled at how I was instinctively aware on the street when I was about to be attacked - she didn't have that at all. I suspect that's a typical sex difference, and one reason muggers & purse snatchers favour female targets, along with lower strength.
Quote from: Trond;1082892One source is "Biological Anthropology" By Stanford et al. (4th ed).
What on earth are you basing that bolded part on?
Here's a link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences)
The 'reptilian brain' includes the brain stem and the cerebellum. There are no observed sexual differences between those elements of the brain.
Please note that I did not make a claim that there are no differences
at all between the male and female brain; just the part that was implicated in competition for mates.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1082915Here's a link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences)
The 'reptilian brain' includes the brain stem and the cerebellum. There are no observed sexual differences between those elements of the brain.
Please note that I did not make a claim that there are no differences at all between the male and female brain; just the part that was implicated in competition for mates.
We don't really know all the parts implicated in the competition for mates (probably a whole lot), but we do know that men and women differ in that regard, from purely behavioral studies. It makes sense that it would too. The 'reptilian brain' or 'lizard brain' is a bit of a silly term, usually used for parts of the brain stem (midbrain mainly as far as I have seen, because it is seen as a part that has changed very little), but these are certainly not the only parts involved.
By the way; here's an observation. Relatively few people actually say that there are no biological behavioral differences between men and women (though I have seen some people doing just this), and I don't know anyone who claims that all our behaviors are biologically determined.
BUT if find that one group of people are remarkably unwilling to agree that any specific behaviors are biologically influenced. Every time evidence is presented, they object. While another group is much more willing to say that e.g. interest in certain things is more typical for this sex versus that. In some cases, like libido, I seriously think that these questions should have been settled long ago. The difference is obvious to me, at least.
Quote from: Haffrung;1082884Affluent men don't often marry poor women, but they do often marry middle-class women who earn less than they do. Male doctors marry nurses. Male executives marry HR professionals. Male accountants marry payroll clerks.
The reverse is much less common. I'd wager the average salary of the spouses of female doctors is substantially higher than the average salaries of the spouses of male doctors. In fact, I'd bet a third or so of the spouses of male doctors don't work at all, while I'd be shocked if that held true for the spouses of female doctors.
Women have a strong preference, regardless of their own income, to partner with a man who makes as much or more than they make. To the extent that they'll typically go without a partner at all - even raise children without a partner - in preference to partnering with a low-income, low-status man. Which is one of the reasons marriage has collapsed and single-parent families have become the norm among the working class.
So much so, it has a name, it's called hypergamy.
Hypothetically, how do you see the gender... schism (calling it a war seem hyperbolic) progressing? Not really much at all, reaching an equilibrium most people are ok with or one that most hate, some kind of aggressively matriarchal society at least in tradition and culture or even with some of aspect of "Women's Privilege" or even a pushback that results in unfortunate and unforeseen consequence, including hardening and bolstering some apsects of gender relations that many find suspect (MRAs, Incels, MGTOW, etc) or plain Bad (Patriarchy!, Rape Culture!)
Things are getting better. Slowly. Painfully.
Forty years ago telling your secretary that BJs were the primary performance metric that determined whether she could keep her job was 'not a big deal'. It still happens an awful lot, but there are more legal protections and such.
There are still a lot of people that pay women less, but all of the reasons they would have given before are not permitted. If it can be shown that they're doing it for illegal reasons then employees have more options to demand fair treatment.
The biggest issue(s) remaining are about the cost of standing up for your rights. But even that is changing in a positive way. Women who have been coerced in various ways have spoken out against the system. If it can happen to famous, successful women, it can happen to anyone.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1084273Forty years ago telling your secretary that BJs were the primary performance metric that determined whether she could keep her job was 'not a big deal'. It still happens an awful lot, but there are more legal protections and such.
In 1979? Forcing a secretary to suck you dick or lose her job certainly was a fucking big deal. Sexual assault, blackmail, and coercion has been almost universally derided since prehistory, and that was 10 years after the sexual revolution and well into the era of the working woman. Things like that did happen, certain types of assholes bragged to their buddies about it, and it was often more consensual than you'd expect (it's a good thing we tend to frown more on relationships when there's a direct supervisory role today, that is a real improvement), but it was nothing like your twisted masturbatory fantasies.
Stop fucking lying. Pretending any history except the last couple years was a complete horrorshow, where everyone gleefully raped everyone and nobody had any morals or agency doesn't make you look better, by comparison. It makes you look like a scumbag.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1084273Forty years ago telling your secretary that BJs were the primary performance metric that determined whether she could keep her job was 'not a big deal'. It still happens an awful lot, but there are more legal protections and such.
Quote from: Pat;1084278In 1979? Forcing a secretary to suck you dick or lose her job certainly was a fucking big deal. Sexual assault, blackmail, and coercion has been almost universally derided since prehistory, and that was 10 years after the sexual revolution and well into the era of the working woman. Things like that did happen, certain types of assholes bragged to their buddies about it, and it was often more consensual than you'd expect (it's a good thing we tend to frown more on relationships when there's a direct supervisory role today, that is a real improvement), but it was nothing like your twisted masturbatory fantasies.
I tend to agree with Pat. For example, Anita Hill started working for Clarence Thomas in 1981 which is pretty close to this time period. Her claims in 1991 of his behavior were taken seriously and considered a big deal. I also don't think that legal protections have changed much since 1979. There was the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which amended a number of points of the original Civil Rights Act, but it wasn't that big of a change. I think there were huge changes in the 1960s into the 1970s, but since 1980 the change has been incremental and slow.
Quote from: Trond;1082938By the way; here's an observation. Relatively few people actually say that there are no biological behavioral differences between men and women (though I have seen some people doing just this), and I don't know anyone who claims that all our behaviors are biologically determined.
BUT if find that one group of people are remarkably unwilling to agree that any specific behaviors are biologically influenced. Every time evidence is presented, they object. While another group is much more willing to say that e.g. interest in certain things is more typical for this sex versus that. In some cases, like libido, I seriously think that these questions should have been settled long ago. The difference is obvious to me, at least.
I think this is consistent with the state of the evidence. People agree that behavior is biologically influenced - but for specific effects it is hard to separate out genetics and environment. Sayings like "the difference is obvious to me" isn't helpful, since through history - many sex stereotypes that people previously thought were obvious turned out to be wrong or misunderstood. Many might well be right, but I don't trust gut feeling to distinguish them and separate Nature from Nurture. This especially since even clear biological factors like level of testosterone have been proven to be influenced by culture, and not just genetics.
Quote from: Pat;1084278In 1979? Forcing a secretary to suck you dick or lose her job certainly was a fucking big deal. Sexual assault, blackmail, and coercion has been almost universally derided since prehistory, and that was 10 years after the sexual revolution and well into the era of the working woman. Things like that did happen, certain types of assholes bragged to their buddies about it, and it was often more consensual than you'd expect (it's a good thing we tend to frown more on relationships when there's a direct supervisory role today, that is a real improvement), but it was nothing like your twisted masturbatory fantasies.
Stop fucking lying. Pretending any history except the last couple years was a complete horrorshow, where everyone gleefully raped everyone and nobody had any morals or agency doesn't make you look better, by comparison. It makes you look like a scumbag.
Times were different and the 'norms' (for the better in significant ways, not so much in others. That's why there is room and opportunity for discussion) have changed but at times it feels like many people want to make any time before 2000 as some mixture of Gor (- the female Slave Masters) and Gilead. :-/
And on the more radical end and all men need to be punished for that until the 'debt' is paid. Its an angry, disturbing side of feminism that, in my reading, is edging towards the more mainstream; but these are divisive angry times.
I find it stunning that the strong willed driven outspoken women that have surrounded my for my life, the women I've seen succeed, defend themselves, excel and over come are freakish outlier among a gender that is almost universally victims oppressed, used and ignored the penis enabled. Or are considered so my modern standard
For example, Women performing "unpaid work" (domestic and similar task) is massive unfair imbalance as women perform more of it. The amount of paid work men do is not counted in this. If a man works 10 hours a day, comes home and does work 4-5 more hours at home. It unfair to the woman, even if she does not work outside the house. Apparently, men need to take on more work, we're lazy and not doing enough in the circumstance.
That's not the entire story, but that is the slant it is frequently given, like the men working the fields, mining or doing whatever being in the money/material are sitting around turtle waxing their genitals while women do the Real Work. :D
Quote from: jhkim;1084285I think this is consistent with the state of the evidence. People agree that behavior is biologically influenced - but for specific effects it is hard to separate out genetics and environment. Sayings like "the difference is obvious to me" isn't helpful, since through history - many sex stereotypes that people previously thought were obvious turned out to be wrong or misunderstood. Many might well be right, but I don't trust gut feeling to distinguish them and separate Nature from Nurture. This especially since even clear biological factors like level of testosterone have been proven to be influenced by culture, and not just genetics.
No what you're saying here, THAT isn't helpful. It's turning into an endless "we can't really know" when we do know. Despite individual variation and environmental influence, testosterone is obviously at very different concentrations in men and women. This is information that is used in clinical therapies of emotional/behavioral problems on a daily basis. This is actually starting to look like science denial.
Quote from: CarlD.;1084255Hypothetically, how do you see the gender... schism (calling it a war seem hyperbolic) progressing? Not really much at all, reaching an equilibrium most people are ok with or one that most hate, some kind of aggressively matriarchal society at least in tradition and culture or even with some of aspect of "Women's Privilege" or even a pushback that results in unfortunate and unforeseen consequence, including hardening and bolstering some apsects of gender relations that many find suspect (MRAs, Incels, MGTOW, etc) or plain Bad (Patriarchy!, Rape Culture!)
Hard to tell. There is a lot of digging in on all sides going on right now. Some (Steven Pinker at least) say that there was actually a wave of feminism and social justice in the 90s that receded, and then came back with a vengeance more recently.
Hopefully it will die down a bit, but that does not seem to be the way it's going; I think that the antics of Donald Trump aren't helping, having more the effect of disturbing the hornet's nest. Most people I interact with don't seem to take the 'schism' too seriously, EXCEPT many people in power (e.g. at the university where I work) seem to think that the only thing to do is to bend over to the SJWs or to be SJWs themselves. Notice that the American Psychological Association (APA, which is VERY influential) has apparently completely given in to SJW-isms: traditional masculinity is bad. Meanwhile several articles have been written on the APA memo, ridiculing it. Maybe these are signs that it will get worse before it gets better (shudder).
Quote from: Pat;1084278In 1979? Forcing a secretary to suck you dick or lose her job certainly was a fucking big deal. Sexual assault, blackmail, and coercion has been almost universally derided since prehistory, and that was 10 years after the sexual revolution and well into the era of the working woman. Things like that did happen, certain types of assholes bragged to their buddies about it, and it was often more consensual than you'd expect (it's a good thing we tend to frown more on relationships when there's a direct supervisory role today, that is a real improvement), but it was nothing like your twisted masturbatory fantasies.
Stop fucking lying. Pretending any history except the last couple years was a complete horrorshow, where everyone gleefully raped everyone and nobody had any morals or agency doesn't make you look better, by comparison. It makes you look like a scumbag.
The most obnoxious thing about the Gillette commercial was showing a bunch of behaviour typical (though still regarded as boorish) in the 50s-60s, and then acting as though this was the norm until last year, when people finally took a stand with MeToo. What nonsense.
Progressive activism is emotional rather than rational. Why is why its advocates go ballistic whenever the empirical progress we've made is brought up. Facts don't matter, feelings do. A liberal like Steven Pinker gets attacked far more from the left than the right for simply documenting the enormous progress humans have made in the last couple hundred years.
In some cases the denial of progress is a political tactic. Never take your foot off the pedal. Maintain a state of crisis at all times. But some younger activists are genuinely ignorant, and believe the world before about 2002 was an endless and undifferentiated nightmare of oppression and injustice. For instance, they don't seem to realize that white-collar workplaces historically had a lot more women than men working at them, as for each male accountant or engineer at a company there were typically 2-3 female secretaries or clerks. And since people married young, and most women quit their jobs once they started a family, an unmarried accountant or engineer would be quite a catch to a secretary or typist. So the great majority of office relationships absolutely were consensual, and many resulted in marriage and kids.
Quote from: Trond;1084373Hard to tell. There is a lot of digging in on all sides going on right now. Some (Steven Pinker at least) say that there was actually a wave of feminism and social justice in the 90s that receded, and then came back with a vengeance more recently. Hopefully it will die down a bit, but that does not seem to be the way it's going; I think that the antics of Donald Trump aren't helping, having more the effect of disturbing the hornet's nest. Most people I interact with don't seem to take the 'schism' too seriously, EXCEPT many people in power (e.g. at the university where I work) seem to think that the only thing to do is to bend over to the SJWs or to be SJWs themselves. Notice that the American Psychological Association (APA, which is VERY influential) has apparently completely given in to SJW-isms: traditional masculinity is bad. Meanwhile several articles have been written on the APA memo, ridiculing it. Maybe these are signs that it will get worse before it gets better (shudder).
That doesn't bode well. Is that article available online?
Speaking of 40-50 years ago, something that may seem bizarre today was going on. Because of the sexual revolution, "free love", and all that (primarily on the left), many far left progressives expected that women would soon be as horny and sexually aggressive as men. Sex would be as casual as a handshake, some suggested. Even if nobody actually took it that far, I believe that there were quite a few misunderstandings because of this attitude. But women never came around as they had expected, because sex is inherently a bit private, and women and men are not as alike as some like to think. Then the conversation started to shift so that it was no longer just conservatives who held back (sex and church rarely mix), but progressives too ("rape culture" and all that) even sometimes leaning towards those who interpreted sex as some sort of oppression of women (these have always been around but became more prominent). Of course, most people were simply decent human beings throughout, but you can see some of this going on in the literature for instance, and there are still some that seem to expect women in general to become as sexually interested as men.
Quote from: CarlD.;1084403That doesn't bode well. Is that article available online?
Try looking at https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf (https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf)
Quote from: CarlD.;1084403That doesn't bode well. Is that article available online?
Here's one article, with link to the APA PDF
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/briannaheldt/2019/01/07/american-psychological-association-labels-traditional-masculinity-as-harmful-n2538637
Quote from: Trond;1084411Here's one article, with link to the APA PDF
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/briannaheldt/2019/01/07/american-psychological-association-labels-traditional-masculinity-as-harmful-n2538637
Thank you, it looks like an interesting read.
One thing that as struck me (from my male perspective) as odd is the hostility I've seen and ran into from women about the idea of male candidate picking a female running mate. Its true that VP is a side kick position, fair enough, but the anger is something else. It would have been something before Obama to see of black VP and these folks almost like they want a rule where being a "cis" man prevent you from running, even of you're not a Straight White Guy (different ethnicites and sexual orientations are in play among the men in the race). Honestly, and perhaps tellingly for me I thought Buttigieg would be getting more 'SJW" support (OTOH, I thought there would be much more unsavory pushback due to his orientation as well).
Oh boy, I have some more bad news. I used to read a lot of magazines in the past, and I still occasionally check what they are writing about. It seems that both Playboy (as mentioned before) and GQ have gone completely woke.
GQ has this article (https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/the-problem-with-fake-male-feminists), in which they point out the "fake" male feminists (perhaps indicating that the author is the real thing), including mean men bossing women around. And as a cherry on top GQ seems to take the #Metoo accusations against Ansari seriously. "For as headline-grabbing the Weinstein story has been, the Ansari story feels just as instructive. Both nonchalantly placed male desire above female distress." Yay. To me, the author is as fake as any of the others, because he does not seem to think that women can take care of themselves enough to say no to a guy like Ansari. Does he think women are children? Doesn't he know that women bosses can be complete psychos as well (my wife has had two)? They also had that interview where they put a female feminist up against Jordan Peterson and trying to tear him down. Wasn't Gentlemen Quarterly supposed to be for.....you know GentleMEN? Again WTF?
Quote from: Trond;1084703Oh boy, I have some more bad news. I used to read a lot of magazines in the past, and I still occasionally check what they are writing about. It seems that both Playboy (as mentioned before) and GQ have gone completely woke.
GQ has this article (https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/the-problem-with-fake-male-feminists), in which they point out the "fake" male feminists (perhaps indicating that the author is the real thing), including mean men bossing women around. And as a cherry on top GQ seems to take the #Metoo accusations against Ansari seriously. "For as headline-grabbing the Weinstein story has been, the Ansari story feels just as instructive. Both nonchalantly placed male desire above female distress." Yay. To me, the author is as fake as any of the others, because he does not seem to think that women can take care of themselves enough to say no to a guy like Ansari. Does he think women are children? Doesn't he know that women bosses can be complete psychos as well (my wife has had two)? They also had that interview where they put a female feminist up against Jordan Peterson and trying to tear him down. Wasn't Gentlemen Quarterly supposed to be for.....you know GentleMEN? Again WTF?
I always love the term male feminist. So Oxymoronic.
Quote from: Trond;1084373Hard to tell. There is a lot of digging in on all sides going on right now. Some (Steven Pinker at least) say that there was actually a wave of feminism and social justice in the 90s that receded, and then came back with a vengeance more recently. Hopefully it will die down a bit, but that does not seem to be the way it's going; I think that the antics of Donald Trump aren't helping, having more the effect of disturbing the hornet's nest. Most people I interact with don't seem to take the 'schism' too seriously, EXCEPT many people in power (e.g. at the university where I work) seem to think that the only thing to do is to bend over to the SJWs or to be SJWs themselves. Notice that the American Psychological Association (APA, which is VERY influential) has apparently completely given in to SJW-isms: traditional masculinity is bad. Meanwhile several articles have been written on the APA memo, ridiculing it. Maybe these are signs that it will get worse before it gets better (shudder).
I do wonder how 'binary' the question of SJWism is. Most people demonstrate similar behaviors and reactions online if they bother to respond at all both "SJW" and those that say they hate them and those in between. Only the triggers differ very much; the reactions are generally the same type of STFU, you're stupid blind, biased, insane, etc and need to be silenced in some fashion (from no one should ever listen to you or think about what you say, you game/book/etc should be blocked from market, etc. ANd of course, the "Other Side" started it, is totally wrong (even objectively evil to some extremists) and their side is golden and pure and the victims.
Quote from: Trond;1084703Oh boy, I have some more bad news. I used to read a lot of magazines in the past, and I still occasionally check what they are writing about. It seems that both Playboy (as mentioned before) and GQ have gone completely woke.
GQ has this article (https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/the-problem-with-fake-male-feminists), in which they point out the "fake" male feminists (perhaps indicating that the author is the real thing), including mean men bossing women around. And as a cherry on top GQ seems to take the #Metoo accusations against Ansari seriously. "For as headline-grabbing the Weinstein story has been, the Ansari story feels just as instructive. Both nonchalantly placed male desire above female distress." Yay. To me, the author is as fake as any of the others, because he does not seem to think that women can take care of themselves enough to say no to a guy like Ansari. Does he think women are children? Doesn't he know that women bosses can be complete psychos as well (my wife has had two)? They also had that interview where they put a female feminist up against Jordan Peterson and trying to tear him down. Wasn't Gentlemen Quarterly supposed to be for.....you know GentleMEN? Again WTF?
Interesting times we live in. Its true that in the mainstream, anything that favors men in automatically suspect of hostile sexism if not outright misogyny. MRAs are assholes even when the espouse things that are documented fact (imbalances in genders number as far as custody, sentencing, domestic violence charges, etcs) MRAs are SJWs... with a focus on gender inequaities that effect men. Some of them are assshurt jokers that have been burned/hurt by women and blame them all as a result same ass some feminists are angry man haters that blame all men for something that hurt them personally and/or are operating under the perception that having a dick is a golden ticker to Win in Life forever.
It's not. Neither is having a Vag (which does some seem to be the assumption SOME MtF gender dysphoria patients operate under, not all but some...)
The issue appears to boil down to humans (generally speakking) what simple, binary answers to complicated problems and "Bad Guys" to blame. Real Life rarely works out that. Maybe more men play RPGs is because its an activity that appeals more to men, like Scrapbooking appears to appeal more to women (No one is worked up about that as far as I've seen but allot of folks are willing to hurl invective and virtual feces at face less people on the internet over the horrid imbalance between how many women as opposed to men what to pretended to be space knights and elves during their free time). The "pay gap" issue, arguably more serious to real life is immensely complex and cherry picked numbers can result in various conclusions so most just pick a corner, follower the numbers that support their choice and dig, IME.
It feels like so much could be learned and perhaps accomplished if we (general we) could set down and actually rationally talk. But humans are emotional, confrontational little monkeys... myself included. We can rise above it but its difficult and often does provide that visceral immediate emotional thrill just wallowing in it can give.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1084409Try looking at https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf (https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf)
It is interesting how depictions of "Strong, willful empowered" female characters often have traits that would speak to 'toxic' or problematic masculinity in a male character. Derogatory 'gendering' and type casting is fine as long as it goes in one direction.Men are cruel beasts jealous of strong women and interested only in taking their power for themselves as some of my ardent feminist associates tell me. Apparently we're really jealous that they have babies.
Edit: Actually, I'm okay with some feminist messaging and so called "Grrl Power!" in entertainment. Its' only fair.Hell, I loved the more kick ass females that showed up in th late 80s, 90s, etc...
But it does get old being hit over the head with the anvil of how horrible I am because I had the misfortune to be born with a penis and owe everyone who wasn't a deep and personal apology for that and for being part of 49% that's holding back the Matriarchal Utopia.
Quote from: CarlD.;1084860It is interesting how depictions of "Strong, willful empowered" female characters often have traits that would speak to 'toxic' or problematic masculinity in a male character. Derogatory 'gendering' and type casting is fine as long as it goes in one direction.Men are cruel beasts jealous of strong women and interested only in taking their power for themselves as some of my ardent feminist associates tell me. Apparently we're really jealous that they have babies.
Edit: Actually, I'm okay with some feminist messaging and so called "Grrl Power!" in entertainment. Its' only fair.Hell, I loved the more kick ass females that showed up in th late 80s, 90s, etc...
But it does get old being hit over the head with the anvil of how horrible I am because I had the misfortune to be born with a penis and owe everyone who wasn't a deep and personal apology for that and for being part of 49% that's holding back the Matriarchal Utopia.
Greetings!
LOL! Great stuff, CarlD.:D I agree. I found myself laughing in agreement entirely with your tone. Spot on, sir.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: CarlD.;1084860It is interesting how depictions of "Strong, willful empowered" female characters often have traits that would speak to 'toxic' or problematic masculinity in a male character. Derogatory 'gendering' and type casting is fine as long as it goes in one direction.Men are cruel beasts jealous of strong women and interested only in taking their power for themselves as some of my ardent feminist associates tell me. Apparently we're really jealous that they have babies.
Edit: Actually, I'm okay with some feminist messaging and so called "Grrl Power!" in entertainment. Its' only fair.Hell, I loved the more kick ass females that showed up in th late 80s, 90s, etc...
But it does get old being hit over the head with the anvil of how horrible I am because I had the misfortune to be born with a penis and owe everyone who wasn't a deep and personal apology for that and for being part of 49% that's holding back the Matriarchal Utopia.
I agree that this isn't new at all. I remember many of the same talking point from when I was a kid in the 80s.
On a more humorous level ; Next time I see a debate about "strong women" I would love for some dry serious dude to look straight into the camera and go "well, I hate to break it to you, and you can say many good things about women, but they are not particularly
strong. You see, I always have to open the jars for them" Oh the reaction to that would be precious :D
That would be fun to see.
Its kind of funny in a ironic fashion ( to me I have a weird sense of humor) that being the sex that carries and births babies is to women kind of like having external genitalia is to men: Symbolic and representative of a certain degree of "power" the Other Side can't have, but also a certain degree of vulnerability. A vulnerability that the Other Side likes to rub in their faces whenever possible. :D
Quote from: Trond;1084915I agree that this isn't new at all. I remember many of the same talking point from when I was a kid in the 80s.
On a more humorous level ; Next time I see a debate about "strong women" I would love for some dry serious dude to look straight into the camera and go "well, I hate to break it to you, and you can say many good things about women, but they are not particularly strong. You see, I always have to open the jars for them" Oh the reaction to that would be precious :D
I find it humorous and ridiculous when some girl power advocate proclaims we (men) need to step aside and let strong independent women take the lead. If they really were strong and independent, they wouldn't need anyone to step aside, they would rise to the top on their own.
Quote from: Joey2k;1084942I find it humorous and ridiculous when some girl power advocate proclaims we (men) need to step aside and let strong independent women take the lead. If they really were strong and independent, they wouldn't need anyone to step aside, they would rise to the top on their own.
The "Strong Amazonian Mistresses/Eternal Oppressed Victims" paradox. Its definitely pretty dug in.
Quote from: Joey2k;1084942I find it humorous and ridiculous when some girl power advocate proclaims we (men) need to step aside and let strong independent women take the lead. If they really were strong and independent, they wouldn't need anyone to step aside, they would rise to the top on their own.
I keep waiting for the demands that women be required to sign up for selective service when they turn 18.
Equality of options without equality of responsibility is advantage not equality.
Quote from: Toadmaster;1084992I keep waiting for the demands that women be required to sign up for selective service when they turn 18.
Equality of options without equality of responsibility is advantage not equality.
Like the (https://www.servicewomen.org/swan-updates/congress-wrestles-over-the-question-of-the-draft-for-women/) Service Women's Action Network? (https://www.c-span.org/video/?460139-3/washington-journal-ellen-haring-discusses-women-included-military-draft)
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1085020Like the (https://www.servicewomen.org/swan-updates/congress-wrestles-over-the-question-of-the-draft-for-women/) Service Women's Action Network? (https://www.c-span.org/video/?460139-3/washington-journal-ellen-haring-discusses-women-included-military-draft)
Wow, April 27 rather timely there.
Good, first I've heard of them. Looking at the goals of the organization I approve. Not only the selective service issue, but also the "separate but equal" standards. I've long felt having different standards for women in the military just leads to many of the issues with women in the military. Nobody can respect a co-worker who is held to a lower standard of performance.
Thanks
One of our Radio Talkback hosts, Sean Plunket, is predicting that the Feminazis will be coming for NZs nation sport (https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/04/woke-left-feminazis-will-try-to-ban-rugby-within-two-years-sean-plunket.html) Rugby within the next two years.
Very satirical but that would wake up middle class NZ if it was to come to pass.
Quote"It's violent, it pits people against each other and is therefore not cooperative or inclusive. It is a game that comes from our colonial past," he says.
"Therefore it is a part of our evil colonial repressive past. It has also been male-dominated so rugby is part of the oppressive male patriarchy which has left women in terror for hundreds and if not thousands of years.
"They'll also say it's violent and it promotes violence amongst men, and from men against women, and they'll quote those statistics about the admissions to women's refuges when the All Blacks lose."
"Supermajority" (https://www.axios.com/supermajority-women-political-activists-planned-parenthood-ba97230d-caa2-4511-8939-ba5a1d8bfb59.html)
I can appreciate the notion of women's political movement, consolidating power and similar goals...but damn, if "feminists" in general want to put the "War on Men" narrative to bed they could turn it down a notch, IMO.
Quote from: Shasarak;1084712I always love the term male feminist. So Oxymoronic.
I'm a male feminist.
I think we've had this conversation before.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085090I'm a male feminist.
I think we've had this conversation before.
Yeah, there are "legit" male feminists of various stripes.
Feminism is a sociopolitical moment(s). There's no reason a man share even the most extreme Anti-male versions (they all aren't). For an extremely hyperbolic argument for it you have blacks and other ethnicities as card carrying members of groups like the KKK. Issues I have aside, most school and branches of feminism aren't generally as extreme as those groups I worry if they may become that way over time however.
Neither are MRAs though the skew more aggressive, IME. BTW, there are female MRAs, they're oddly cherished in a way as having a woman backing them seems to add some legitimacy when MRA issues come up particularly regarding male victims of domestic violence and rape.
The possible motivations are complicated and nearly endless and I am not a psychologist.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085090I'm a male feminist.
I think we've had this conversation before.
It makes me smile everytime.
Quote from: Shasarak;1084712I always love the term male feminist. So Oxymoronic.
It's shorthand for "virtue signalling clown begging for a blow job"
Quote from: Spinachcat;1085189It's shorthand for "virtue signalling clown begging for a blow job"
Greetings!
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!:D Fuck yeah, my friend! My god, I almost choked on my coffee laughing from that. Awesome, Spinachcat!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Is Moore just being an ass or does have a point?
Trump Fed Pick Stephen Moore Criticized Wage Equality, Calling It 'Equal Pay for Inferior Work' (https://ktla.com/2019/04/22/trump-fed-pick-stephen-moore-criticized-wage-equality-calling-it-equal-pay-for-inferior-work/)
Quote from: Spinachcat;1085189It's shorthand for "virtue signalling clown begging for a blow job"
Standing up for equality does't have to have ulterior motives. Being a feminist is not getting me any more nookie than not identifying as one would. I believe in the fundamental equality of all people despite recognizing that there are many people who are not as smart, good looking, or successful as I am. People can differ, and you can judge them qualitatively by that, but their intrinsic value as a human being is not determined by any of those abilities.
I'd also point out that someone with severely restricted mobility is just as much a person as I am.
Some people just believe that it's important to stand up for what they believe. I'm clearly not in a place where 'virtual signaling' gets me anything but derision and scorn. It's still important for me to stand up for my beliefs - otherwise it is too easy to believe that every 'right-thinking individual' agrees with you.
Quote from: CarlD.;1085304Is Moore just being an ass or does have a point?
Trump Fed Pick Stephen Moore Criticized Wage Equality, Calling It 'Equal Pay for Inferior Work' (https://ktla.com/2019/04/22/trump-fed-pick-stephen-moore-criticized-wage-equality-calling-it-equal-pay-for-inferior-work/)
Both, of course. In the article, he says he was being an ass.
But the argument about women athletes was well put by Rhonda Rousey.
[video=youtube;ZLrNBmXhr1M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLrNBmXhr1M[/youtube]
Female athletes should be paid at a rate that matches ticket sales. This is like, basic math stuff.
If women athletes want to be paid more, they should figure out a way to get more butts in seats, not bitch about pay gap nonsense.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085313Standing up for equality does't have to have ulterior motives.
Unfortunately, this is hard to establish given the current circumstances of women in Western society and the history of male-feminists being blowjob-begging liars. Being a male-feminist and making your claim is like trying to bring back the Hitler-mustache and pretending everyone should just not say anything. It shows a staggering lack of perspective.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085313Being a feminist is not getting me any more nookie than not identifying as one would.
You didn't have to tell us, for we non-feminists already know this.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085313I believe in the fundamental equality of all people despite recognizing that there are many people who are not as smart, good looking, or successful as I am. People can differ, and you can judge them qualitatively by that, but their intrinsic value as a human being is not determined by any of those abilities.
Sounds like you think less of women. Since what you're describing is simply what normal people generally do (here in the West). But your *actual* position is that women are lesser than this state and you're fighting to have others treat women - specifically - that might not be "as smart, good looking, or successful as I am" as if THEY ARE.
This is where that lack of perspective on reality comes in.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085313I'd also point out that someone with severely restricted mobility is just as much a person as I am.
Is this in question by anyone? Interesting that you need to point this out. Are you trying to convince someone other than us of this claim?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085313Some people just believe that it's important to stand up for what they believe. I'm clearly not in a place where 'virtual signaling' gets me anything but derision and scorn. It's still important for me to stand up for my beliefs - otherwise it is too easy to believe that every 'right-thinking individual' agrees with you.
That's because "virtue signalling" is intellectually and ultimately morally dishonest. It is part of a construct for dishonest individuals that know less than jack-and-dick about ethics and is instead an umbrella where they can weaponize their self-loathing by trying to inflict it on those that do not think like they do. If find it hilarious that you're insinuating that Virtue Signalling is not deserving of "derision and scorn" and then in the same thought justify your banal claim of "believing it's important to stand up for your beliefs (whatever those are) - or it becomes too easy to believe every 'right thinking individual' agrees with you' - when that is *the precise intent* of what virtue signalling is for.
Which of course only underscores my original point: staggering lack of perspective.
Quote from: tenbones;1085322Unfortunately, this is hard to establish given the current circumstances of women in Western society and the history of male-feminists being blowjob-begging liars. Being a male-feminist and making your claim is like trying to bring back the Hitler-mustache and pretending everyone should just not say anything. It shows a staggering lack of perspective.
You didn't have to tell us for us non-feminists to know this.
Sounds like you think less of women. Since what you're describing is simply what normal people generally do (here in the West). But your *actual* position is that women are lesser than this state and you're fighting to have others treat women - specifically - that might not be "as smart, good looking, or successful as I am" as if THEY ARE.
This is where that lack of perspective on reality comes in.
Is this in question by anyone? Interesting that you need to point this out. Are you trying to convince someone other than us of this claim?
That's because "virtue signalling" is intellectually and ultimately morally dishonest. It is part of a construct for dishonest individuals that know less than jack-and-dick about ethics and is instead an umbrella where they can weaponize their self-loathing by trying to inflict it on those that do not think like they do. If find it hilarious that you're insinuating that Virtue Signalling is not deserving of "derision and scorn" and then in the same thought justify your banal claim of "believing it's important to stand up for your beliefs (whatever those are) - or it becomes too easy to believe every 'right thinking individual' agrees with you' - when that is *the precise intent* of what virtue signalling is for.
Which of course only underscores my original point: staggering lack of perspective.
Greetings!
Fucking ON POINT, brother! Keep them tank treads rolling, rolling, rolling!:D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085313Standing up for equality does't have to have ulterior motives.
LOL.
"Standing up for equality" means judging people on merit, not handing out goodies based on their medals in the Oppression Olympics.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085313Being a feminist is not getting me any more nookie than not identifying as one would.
It's getting you less nookie. Most women can smell bullshit.
The "I'm a sensitive guy" scam isn't new.
If you ask me, the real difference is not if someone believe in individual rights or not.
it's e.g. if you believe this story or not:
https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/4d6ujp/tabletop_gaming_has_a_white_male_terrorism_problem/
Some people look at this and immediately believe that it shows proof of how horribly women are treated on a regular basis by gamers. Others read it, find it lacking in credibility, and conclude (like me) that the link above is full of horse shit.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1085347It's getting you less nookie. Most women can smell bullshit.
The "I'm a sensitive guy" scam isn't new.
I do believe deadDMwalking when he says that he wants equality for everyone and he is right that it is not a popular opinion around here.
The main problem that I personally see with that philosophy is when you start to confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. Because it is self evident that women already have equality of opportunity, at least here in western countries.
Equality for everyone =/= modern feminism.
Not by a long shot.
I think this guy is long for Tang
(https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/trumps-trade-waagh-what-is-it-good-for.833532/post-22563434)
Quote from: the post he was replying tooAccording to the Pew Research Center and Congressional report,wages have been stagnating for everybody except the very tip-topmost earners, who are overwhelmingly, by the way, white men.
The wage gap has been closing, not because women's pay is increasing - it is not - but because men's on average is decreasing.
And yet men are still paid more on average than women. Under the circumstances, while men's declining wages are a crisis, so are women's flat and considerably lower wages.
When the "cohort" of those whose wages are declining is everybody (except the top men), it is reasonable to consider that focusing only on the men is indistinguishable from sexism.
Quote from: the soon to be former posterMaybe. Just don't double-down on the accusation when someone wants to discuss the problem. Because we can distinguish a source of social angst from an economic problem from an equity problem. They're all different things. Additionally, stagnation is very different from a decrease.
Nearly everyone on Tang will be able to coherently argue about whether the stagnation of lower wages is a problem. I'm not worried about that. My concern is that people doubling-down on the concern of falling male wages as 'sexist'. It certainly can be, but it needn't be. A 'decrease' is going to cause social problems. There's no part of that data-set that suggests that it's 'good' that men's wages are falling. It causes social issues, merely because it's happening. And no one will argue against the idea of anyone's wages rising is a problem, and if they do, it's because they're actually concerned about an underlying fairness issue.
But, I am confused about your claim that wages are declining for 'everyone'. I'm not disagreeing, but I don't know if your summary is accurate enough. Table 1 of the FAS report shows that male wages are decreasing. Table 2 indicates that the racial disparity is aggravating. It means that people in this cohort are not contributing less to any union that they join, but that their ability to contribute has actually gone down. Unpacking stagnation from declining is important.
One piece of the discussion that commonly fails is that some group decides to say that another group's decrease is 'okay', because they've already gotten too much. I've had right-wingers tell me that wage-stagnation is okay, because we have Xboxes now, and that's better. Now, this is Tangency, so we're happy to have discussions about whether some politicians is too sexist or whatever. But we have to remember to be able to coherently discuss this issue in public, so that we don't just automatically lose the conversation to the ignore feature.
This is very off topic, but you know... I've grown to loathe the ignore feature on forums. It's too easy and tempting of a shortcut to just stop conversing because eff the other guy.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1085409This is very off topic, but you know... I've grown to loathe the ignore feature on forums. It's too easy and tempting of a shortcut to just stop conversing because eff the other guy.
Greetings!
Hmmm...interesting. You know, I have never placed anyone on *Ignore*. I enjoy talking with people. Certainly people that are like-minded and join me in agreement, but also those that disagree. I've never been afraid or hesitant to defend my own views on anything.:D Hang in there, Tanin Wulf. Don't become discouraged, but rather, boldly go forth into the battle.:D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
The only people I've put on ignore are people who post in an odd color or font. For some reason, it rubs me the wrong way.
I will use the ignore function if I find myself forever butting heads with someone.
Quote from: SHARK;1085415Greetings!
Hmmm...interesting. You know, I have never placed anyone on *Ignore*. I enjoy talking with people. Certainly people that are like-minded and join me in agreement, but also those that disagree. I've never been afraid or hesitant to defend my own views on anything.:D Hang in there, Tanin Wulf. Don't become discouraged, but rather, boldly go forth into the battle.:D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Always faithful indeed, Shark.
To Shasarak: I don't begrudge anyone who uses Ignore. It's just become a pet peeve of mine of late. Probably just overreacting to to what it currently symbolizes to me.
I have no idea why some guys are feminists. Well, the ones who believe that it simply means equal rights for all, sure, but not the hard-core ones. My wife used to have a coworker that struck me as the most dedicated male feminist I have ever met. One of those people who thinks that old Disney was brainwashing women to think they are supposed to be pretty princesses (rather than people simply watching his movies because they liked what they saw). The department invited a radical feminist speaker who berated everyone in the hall, even though most of them were leftists and SJW-leaning. The men were all misogynists and the women were not feminist enough apparently. Many of the people disliked her attitude as she was pissing everyone off, but this guy LOVED it, trying to convince the others that she behaving like that because she was "fighting rampant misogyny". I'm frankly baffled, and can't explain what's going through that guy's head.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1085440To Shasarak: I don't begrudge anyone who uses Ignore. It's just become a pet peeve of mine of late. Probably just overreacting to to what it currently symbolizes to me.
There was one guy that constantly shilled 4e like it was Gods gift to DnD players who had been wandering the desert for 40 years.
And you know anyone who calls me a Nazi because who has time to talk with half-wits.
Quote from: Shasarak;1085423I will use the ignore function if I find myself forever butting heads with someone.
I like theRPGsite ignore function - I still know when someone has posted and if someone has responded to them I might open the post to see the full thing. On ENW where they entirely disappear it can get confusing, especially when I've forgotten about the person I put on IL.
Generally I reserve IL for prolific posters who keep posting the same rubbish, and I already know what they're going to say, more than personal antagonism.
I won't ever use an Ignore button.
First, I'm hardcore on freedom of speech. If I'm gonna post my bullshit, then I've gotta be cool with everyone else posting their bullshit, regardless how wankass their bullshit might be compared to my ultracool genius bullshit.
Second, I enjoy seeing everyone's thoughts. I might learn something, or get a LOLZ, or get a chance to bring down the fire in the mosh pit of hate!!!
Quote from: Spinachcat;1085485I won't ever use an Ignore button.
First, I'm hardcore on freedom of speech. If I'm gonna post my bullshit, then I've gotta be cool with everyone else posting their bullshit, regardless how wankass their bullshit might be compared to my ultracool genius bullshit.
Second, I enjoy seeing everyone's thoughts. I might learn something, or get a LOLZ, or get a chance to bring down the fire in the mosh pit of hate!!!
On your first point, ignore doesn't impact their freedom of speech at all. They can still say whatever they will even if you are not listening to them.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1085485I won't ever use an Ignore button.
First, I'm hardcore on freedom of speech. If I'm gonna post my bullshit, then I've gotta be cool with everyone else posting their bullshit, regardless how wankass their bullshit might be compared to my ultracool genius bullshit.
Second, I enjoy seeing everyone's thoughts. I might learn something, or get a LOLZ, or get a chance to bring down the fire in the mosh pit of hate!!!
The first point is iffy. An IL listing doesn't stop anyone whatever the Hell they want just people have the freedom not to deal with their shit. Freedom of Speech isn't garuntee of an audience or platform. If I write a book so shitty no one wants to read it and major publisher will handle it my Freedom of Speech hasn't been violated. My book sucks.
I don't get notifications of people responding. Is that equivalent to everyone being on my ignore list? :D
Nah. The notifications from this site long ago got filtered into my junk mail and I've been too lazy to fish them out of there.
Quote from: CarlD.;1085507The first point is iffy. An IL listing doesn't stop anyone whatever the Hell they want just people have the freedom not to deal with their shit. Freedom of Speech isn't garuntee of an audience or platform. If I write a book so shitty no one wants to read it and major publisher will handle it my Freedom of Speech hasn't been violated. My book sucks.
The you're not guaranteed a platform argument is one of the most insidious threats to freedom of speech today. Companies are highly reactive to even the spectre of bad press. Which means if a special interest group representing a small minority makes enough noise, they'll pressure every publisher to drop your book like a hot potato. That should be chilling to anyone who cares even the slightest about freedom of speech.
It's not freedom of speech if you're only allowed to say what you think in a soft voice in the privacy of your own bathroom. Freedom of speech is about people being able to publicly state their views and discuss issues, and allowing the marketplace of ideas to flourish. Having a platform of some kind is absolutely inherent to the idea, especially when you consider how highly centralized social media has become, and therefore how easy it's become to effectively silence people.
Quote from: Pat;1085518The you're not guaranteed a platform argument is one of the most insidious threats to freedom of speech today. Companies are highly reactive to even the spectre of bad press. Which means if a special interest group representing a small minority makes enough noise, they'll pressure every publisher to drop your book like a hot potato. That should be chilling to anyone who cares even the slightest about freedom of speech.
It's not freedom of speech if you're only allowed to say what you think in a soft voice in the privacy of your own bathroom. Freedom of speech is about people being able to publicly state their views and discuss issues, and allowing the marketplace of ideas to flourish. Having a platform of some kind is absolutely inherent to the idea, especially when you consider how highly centralized social media has become, and therefore how easy it's become to effectively silence people.
There is a huge difference between being banned from Twitter and being restricted to one's own bathroom. Historically, fringe views have always been restricted in platform - they couldn't get published in the popular newspapers, have their books in mainstream bookstores, and so forth. They would often have to have fringe bookstores, hand out pamphlets on street corners, and so forth. I think that was OK, by and large. There have been historical problems with free speech, but I don't think this was one of them.
I don't like the idea of telling Twitter that they have to allow certain accounts - or all accounts. That seems like forcing a bookstore that they have to carry certain books, or telling newspapers what to publish. I don't feel that is necessary for free speech.
Quote from: jhkim;1085574I don't like the idea of telling Twitter that they have to allow certain accounts - or all accounts. That seems like forcing a bookstore that they have to carry certain books, or telling newspapers what to publish. I don't feel that is necessary for free speech.
I don't like the idea of twitter being the arbiter of which political opinions are allowed on their platform, while claiming to be non-partisan.
[video=youtube;EbTXqrS9l5E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbTXqrS9l5E[/youtube]
Quote from: jhkim;1085574I don't like the idea of telling Twitter that they have to allow certain accounts - or all accounts. That seems like forcing a bookstore that they have to carry certain books, or telling newspapers what to publish. I don't feel that is necessary for free speech.
What if there was only one newspaper?
I love how the sides here have reversed since the 1970s, when the Left was all for free expression and the Right was wanting controlled expression.
Quote from: jhkim;1085574There is a huge difference between being banned from Twitter and being restricted to one's own bathroom. Historically, fringe views have always been restricted in platform - they couldn't get published in the popular newspapers, have their books in mainstream bookstores, and so forth. They would often have to have fringe bookstores, hand out pamphlets on street corners, and so forth. I think that was OK, by and large. There have been historical problems with free speech, but I don't think this was one of them.
I don't like the idea of telling Twitter that they have to allow certain accounts - or all accounts. That seems like forcing a bookstore that they have to carry certain books, or telling newspapers what to publish. I don't feel that is necessary for free speech.
I never said a thing about fringe views, that's you deceitfully changing the subject to disguise your opposition to freedom of speech. I was explicitly talking
small minorities silencing views they don't like. You even quoted those very words.
Though claiming anyone's view except yours is "fringe" and using extreme outliers to characterizes entire movements are common methods to suppress free speech. So you provided a good example of how it works.
Quote from: S'mon;1085582I love how the sides here have reversed since the 1970s, when the Left was all for free expression and the Right was wanting controlled expression.
It's the same with voter suppression/voter ID. These aren't moral stances, they're tactical positions. The left and right support whichever is currently in their favor.
Quote from: jhkimI don't like the idea of telling Twitter that they have to allow certain accounts - or all accounts. That seems like forcing a bookstore that they have to carry certain books, or telling newspapers what to publish. I don't feel that is necessary for free speech.
Quote from: S'mon;1085582What if there was only one newspaper?
I love how the sides here have reversed since the 1970s, when the Left was all for free expression and the Right was wanting controlled expression.
Few people have ever been for free expression per se - they have just argued for the promotion of their own views. So yes, it used to be that the Right had more control over mass media and the Left complained more about suppression. Now the Left has more control over it - and thus tendencies have reversed.
As a free speech advocate - I absolutely support shouting out against neonazis, disrupting their speeches, and turning publishers and mass media against them. At the same time, I will fight for neonazis right to still speak out, and prevent violence against them. I don't think these are contradictory. Free speech is about the rules of engagement - the minimum that any view should be allowed, no matter how extreme or vile. Stalinists, neo-nazis, radical Islamists, and others should still be able to hold those views and express them, but they can and should face a lot of opposition.
If you're fighting against bans of conservatives from Twitter - but you don't give a damn about radical Islamists or neonazis banned from Twitter, then you're just arguing for your own side, not for free speech.
I should say that I would prefer that news media and social media be more politically neutral as far as Left/Right, so that in the U.S. both Democrats and Republicans might read from the same news source and be satisfied with the same social media platforms. I'd support that, but I don't think it should be enforced by the government. That isn't about free speech, though.
A parallel is here on theRPGsite. Pundit still bans people - he just does has a lighter hand about bans than some other sites. I appreciate that and approve of his moderation style, but speech here on theRPGsite still isn't free. It's just broader. I support Pundit's right to ban people - because no one has a fundamental right to post on Pundit's board.
Quote from: Pat;1085586I never said a thing about fringe views, that's you deceitfully changing the subject to disguise your opposition to freedom of speech. I was explicitly talking small minorities silencing views they don't like. You even quoted those very words.
Though claiming anyone's view except yours is "fringe" and using extreme outliers to characterizes entire movements are common methods to suppress free speech. So you provided a good example of how it works.
Jhkim reads forum posts like my students read exam questions; by skimming a few sentences and jumping to conclusions on what it's about ;)
Quote from: Pat;1085586I never said a thing about fringe views, that's you deceitfully changing the subject to disguise your opposition to freedom of speech. I was explicitly talking small minorities silencing views they don't like. You even quoted those very words.
Though claiming anyone's view except yours is "fringe" and using extreme outliers to characterizes entire movements are common methods to suppress free speech. So you provided a good example of how it works.
On the contrary, I support the right of fringe views to be expressed. I am in *support* of the free speech rights of neonazis, Stalinists, white nationalists, radical Islamists, and so forth. They have a right to speak out. I am concerned about how their rights are often trampled on.
Of course, mainstream people have a right to be heard as well, but they have far less to worry about.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1085485I won't ever use an Ignore button.
First, I'm hardcore on freedom of speech. If I'm gonna post my bullshit, then I've gotta be cool with everyone else posting their bullshit, regardless how wankass their bullshit might be compared to my ultracool genius bullshit.
Second, I enjoy seeing everyone's thoughts. I might learn something, or get a LOLZ, or get a chance to bring down the fire in the mosh pit of hate!!!
I disagree that Ignore stops free speech, it just means that some one can say what they want and I dont have to read it.
Quote from: jhkim;1085593As a free speech advocate - I absolutely support shouting out against neonazis, disrupting their speeches, and turning publishers and mass media against them. At the same time, I will fight for neonazis right to still speak out, and prevent violence against them. I don't think these are contradictory. Free speech is about the rules of engagement - the minimum that any view should be allowed, no matter how extreme or vile. Stalinists, neo-nazis, radical Islamists, and others should still be able to hold those views and express them, but they can and should face a lot of opposition.
I see actively disrupting someones speech as absolutely contradictory to supporting free speech. Even shouting down someone is anti-free speech.
How do you square that circle?
Quote from: Trond;1085597Jhkim reads forum posts like my students read exam questions; by skimming a few sentences and jumping to conclusions on what it's about ;)
That's unfortunately become very common. Worse, one point of disagreement is enough to get you labeled as one of Them, and then you have to spend the rest of the conversation patiently pointing out that no, I don't believe in any of that other crap you just assigned to me.
Quote from: jhkim;1085599Of course, mainstream people have a right to be heard as well, but they have far less to worry about.
I don't agree. Most of the mainstream media labels the president of the U.S. and his supporters as fringe lunatics. Which is patently absurd, because he was freely elected in a general, popular election. By definition, he can't be fringe.
Part of the problem is the increasing polarization of politics, the increased segmentation of political views based on platform, and the demonization of anyone with even slightly divergent views, which are pervasive problems that threaten free speech in general. But in the case of Trump and his supporters, it's almost a matter of definition. They're on the right, but they're not traditional conservatives, and they're not libertarians. They're certainly not traditional liberals, or progressives. They're sometimes described as populist, but that's really missing the point because populism is a method, not a set of beliefs. They don't fit in any of the common, well-defined niches and the various attempts to put politics on a spectrum struggle to accommodate them. It's also not an intellectual tradition, so there's a shortage of works that explain or present it as a coherent philosophy. That makes it hard to understand them, which in turn makes it easy to dismiss them, or conflate them with other beliefs, especially extreme ones.
Quote from: Shasarak;1085600I see actively disrupting someones speech as absolutely contradictory to supporting free speech. Even shouting down someone is anti-free speech.
How do you square that circle?
It depends on what you see as "disrupting" or "shouting down". Generally speaking, I believe in rudeness but not violence. One doesn't have to be polite and quiet in counter-protesting. If something would be a crime if someone did it in a non-political context - like blowing an airhorn at someone, then yeah, it's too far. But if it just would be considered rude, then it's fair game. Interrupting someone with a rude question or comment isn't a crime, so it's fair to do by counter-protesters.
Actual crimes and violence should lead to arrest and prosecution, which unfortunately it doesn't always.
Quote from: jhkimOf course, mainstream people have a right to be heard as well, but they have far less to worry about.
Quote from: Pat;1085604I don't agree. Most of the mainstream media labels the president of the U.S. and his supporters as fringe lunatics. Which is patently absurd, because he was freely elected in a general, popular election. By definition, he can't be fringe.
Part of the problem is the increasing polarization of politics, the increased segmentation of political views based on platform, and the demonization of anyone with even slightly divergent views, which are pervasive problems that threaten free speech in general.
I agree that polarization is a problem - but it's not a free speech problem. People calling the president a fringe are wrong - but that's not violating his free speech rights. In terms of rights, a lunatic conspiracy theorist or a radical Islamist cleric have just as much right to speech and right to a platform as the President of the United States.
Demonization and name-calling are problems, but they are legal and do not violate people's free speech rights. I would argue that one of the great things about the United States is that someone can call the President all sorts of horrible names and not be jailed for it - which applies just as much for Obama as for Trump.
Quote from: jhkim;1085632It depends on what you see as "disrupting" or "shouting down". Generally speaking, I believe in rudeness but not violence. One doesn't have to be polite and quiet in counter-protesting. If something would be a crime if someone did it in a non-political context - like blowing an airhorn at someone, then yeah, it's too far. But if it just would be considered rude, then it's fair game. Interrupting someone with a rude question or comment isn't a crime, so it's fair to do by counter-protesters.
Actual crimes and violence should lead to arrest and prosecution, which unfortunately it doesn't always.
I agree that polarization is a problem - but it's not a free speech problem. People calling the president a fringe are wrong - but that's not violating his free speech rights. In terms of rights, a lunatic conspiracy theorist or a radical Islamist cleric have just as much right to speech and right to a platform as the President of the United States.
Demonization and name-calling are problems, but they are legal and do not violate people's free speech rights. I would argue that one of the great things about the United States is that someone can call the President all sorts of horrible names and not be jailed for it - which applies just as much for Obama as for Trump.
Bullshit, the reason they're a problem is because once the other group is labeled as fringe, the next thing that happens is they argue that group is no longer within the bounds of permissible conversation, and thus they should be deplatformed and excluded from the conversation. They're attempting to do that with the president, and they've already done it at universities, where views that are conservative or even drifting toward the center are vigorously excluded. That's appalling anywhere, but especially so in an environment that should be a bastion of free speech and opposing viewpoints, like a campus or a political forum. Shouting down speakers is not a form of debate. It's not a coherent rebuttal. It's not an even expression of your personal distaste for the speaker's views. It's preventing anyone else from hearing what they have to say, which is a direct attack on the core principles of free speech.
That assault on the very essence of free speech is the point I was making, which should be clear from what I wrote. Everything else you've written is just feel-good pablum; general statements of support for trivial and long established aspects of free of speech that allow you to pretend to be in support of free speech, while attempting to undercut it in other ways.
Quote from: Pat;1085636Bullshit, the reason they're a problem is because once the other group is labeled as fringe, the next thing that happens is they argue that group is no longer within the bounds of permissible conversation, and thus they should be deplatformed and excluded from the conversation.
You make it sound as though the problem is being labelled as fringe.
My argument is that *everyone* - regardless of whether they are mainstream or fringe - has a right to free speech. Do you agree with this?
Quote from: jhkim;1085645You make it sound as though the problem is being labelled as fringe.
My argument is that *everyone* - regardless of whether they are mainstream or fringe - has a right to free speech. Do you agree with this?
It's a tactic, used to quell free speech. Stop trying to distract from the topic with an idiotic purity test.
Quote from: jhkimYou make it sound as though the problem is being labelled as fringe.
My argument is that *everyone* - regardless of whether they are mainstream or fringe - has a right to free speech. Do you agree with this?
Quote from: Pat;1085647It's a tactic, used to quell free speech. Stop trying to distract from the topic with an idiotic purity test.
Sure, it's a tactic - but equally so, what you're doing is a tactic. That's what happens in debate. Your tactic here is to break out of the content of the debate and attack me by asserting my argument is used to quell free speech, but I don't accept your assertion.
I believe that standing up for fringe groups is important as one of the front lines of free speech rights. It's important to defend neonazis, pornographers, religious extremists, and others - because it establishes the universality of free speech and the widest principle. That is what I consider to be the front line of the fight.
Quote from: jhkim;1085652Sure, it's a tactic - but equally so, what you're doing is a tactic. That's what happens in debate. Your tactic here is to break out of the content of the debate and attack me by asserting my argument is used to quell free speech, but I don't accept your assertion.
I believe that standing up for fringe groups is important as one of the front lines of free speech rights. It's important to defend neonazis, pornographers, religious extremists, and others - because it establishes the universality of free speech and the widest principle. That is what I consider to be the front line of the fight.
Horseshit, you supported two tactics used to quell free speech. I was one of the people who pointed that out, and since then you've been avoiding the topic by proudly proclaiming that you support free speech in general, and trying to validate that claim by stating your support of all kinds of unrelated and largely trivial examples of free speech. You even tried to get my tacit support of your derailment by demanding I reply to a purity test. You've done that in lieu of addressing the specific areas where we pointed our your stance is in clear opposition to free speech. To stay on topic, here are the two areas: You have supported the tactic of defining the opposition as a fringe group, which as I pointed out is used to deplatform the other group by claiming they're outside the bounds of normal conversation. And you have supported shouting down the opposition as a form of free speech, when it's not. It's not an argument, or even primarily a personal expression of feelings. It's a concrete and literal attempt to prevent anyone else from hearing opposing viewpoints, and thus is overwhelmingly a form of suppression of free speech.
Quote from: Pat;1085656To stay on topic, here are the two areas: You have supported the tactic of defining the opposition as a fringe group, which as I pointed out is used to deplatform the other group by claiming they're outside the bounds of normal conversation. And you have supported shouting down the opposition as a form of free speech, when it's not. It's not an argument, or even primarily a personal expression of feelings. It's a concrete and literal attempt to prevent anyone else from hearing opposing viewpoints, and thus is overwhelmingly a form of suppression of free speech.
Thanks for the specifics.
For the former, yes, I disagree with that tactic - but I believe it is within the bounds of free speech. Free speech isn't limited to only certain debate styles. It's no-holds-barred wrestling as far as debate. People should be free to use logical fallacies, emotional appeals, and any other nonsense. Logic wins not by banning any illogical arguments, but by being *better*.
As for "shouting down" -- the usual common usage of that term is expressing disapproval until someone gives up, not a literal deafening wall of sound. I did specify that using an airhorn on someone would be considered a crime and should be prosecuted. Heckling, jeering, and other rude reactions are legal.
Quote from: jhkim;1085661Thanks for the specifics.
For the former, yes, I disagree with that tactic - but I believe it is within the bounds of free speech. Free speech isn't limited to only certain debate styles. It's no-holds-barred wrestling as far as debate. People should be free to use logical fallacies, emotional appeals, and any other nonsense. Logic wins not by banning any illogical arguments, but by being *better*.
As for "shouting down" -- the usual common usage of that term is expressing disapproval until someone gives up, not a literal deafening wall of sound. I did specify that using an airhorn on someone would be considered a crime and should be prosecuted. Heckling, jeering, and other rude reactions are legal.
The Hecklers veto is an anti free speech tool. You do not support free speech.
Greetings!
I find it to be so hypocritical and disingenuous of Liberals when in years past, when *they* wanted freedom of speech to chant anti-American slogans at protests, when they wanted to screech about gay rights, racism, feminism, or anything anti-military, they cried non-stop about "freedom of speech". And yet, increasingly in recent years, Liberals everywhere are rabidly championing tyranny against anyone that thinks differently from them. See how liberals act whenever Ben Shapiro, Lauren Southern, Stephan Molyneux, Sean Hannity, Milo whatehisname, and other conservative speakers seek to attend universities where they were *invited*. Look how liberals act to limit, restrict, and crush freedom of speech on Google, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.
Why are liberals so afraid of people hearing opposing viewpoints, and opposing narratives? If the Liberal's worldview was really so righteous, so good, so moral, and so right--why would they be threatened by what others wish to speak?
Note well, that such conservative speakers seek no bar on liberals attending their meetings, or reading their books, or accessing their arguments online in any platform.
Maybe because the fucking Liberals are morally bankrupt and it is they who love and embrace tyranny. Fucking cowards is what they are. Fucking cowards, and evil, filthy, corrupt rats. It is they who seek to betray our Republic, and trample our Constitution and our cherished freedoms. Like diseased cockroaches, they seek the downfall and destruction of Western Civilization.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I actually had to ponder these specifics, when protesters would blast air horns at college campus speeches, and claim it was their own free speech.
In a public venue, like on a street corner, no one can claim sole ownership of the venue. Therefore it seems that any speech is valid, up to the various ordinances of the city/county/state. Heckle and jeer all you like. I'll heckle and jeer right back.
In a public venue like a college, we have an organizing body recognized as having authority over the venue. The Dean, or whoever runs the place. Thus we agree as a society to follow the rules set down by the college for events. If you go to an event, and they say "We'll have 30 minutes for the speaker, and then 30 minutes for Q&A" you best save the heckling and jeering for your protest outside the hall, and save your questions for the Q&A period. I'm sure no one here wants our college campuses to turn into a 24/7 battle of air horns. I will happily feedback a bullhorn during your gender studies class if that's the rules of engagement you prefer.
Private venues, go mostly without saying. Free speech is at the whim of the person or persons who own the venue. With the very important caveat that if they provide a platform, they had better be goddamn transparent about their biases, and not claim to be non-partisan while administering their platform in a partisan fashion.
IANAL, and I welcome any criticism to sharpen these ideas.
It seems as if some people know they can't win based on the merit of their argument.
Not that I'm opposed to some well done heckling.
...but air horns and shouting people down seem to be the emotional maturity equivalent of small children covering their ears and screaming so they can't hear something they don't like.
Now that I think about it, that level of emotional maturity actually makes sense...They really ARE spoiled little children.
Quote from: jhkim;1085632It depends on what you see as "disrupting" or "shouting down". Generally speaking, I believe in rudeness but not violence. One doesn't have to be polite and quiet in counter-protesting. If something would be a crime if someone did it in a non-political context - like blowing an airhorn at someone, then yeah, it's too far. But if it just would be considered rude, then it's fair game. Interrupting someone with a rude question or comment isn't a crime, so it's fair to do by counter-protesters.
Actual crimes and violence should lead to arrest and prosecution, which unfortunately it doesn't always.
Interrupting with a rude question is not "shouting" them down that is more like heckling. I think shouting them down has a pretty clear meaning and if you are shouting down someone then that is not free speech.
I see people like Ben Shapiro who get terrorized all the time and yet he is the type of guy who will actually debate you honestly if you have a legitimate difference in opinion.
Quote from: Pat;1085587It's the same with voter suppression/voter ID. These aren't moral stances, they're tactical positions. The left and right support whichever is currently in their favor.
Republican efforts to suppress votes are pretty well documented by the media. I am in favor of better control at election sites, but do believe a lot of voter ID efforts are an attempt to eliminate voters likely to vote for the other party.
The DNC in 2016 was not at all tactful or delicate in their attempt to prevent Bernie voters from giving their opinions at the ballot box. Even justifying it as just a primary, so democrats silencing democrats made it all ok, because real democrats would vote Hillary.
To be clear, I prefer honest and logical debate, and I would support it. I think people who shout are often rude and do damage to their own cause. Likewise those who use logical fallacies or labelling.
But I don't think that these should be made illegal and considered beyond the bounds of free speech. I think of the Founding Fathers here. Opposition to the British was often unruly and loud, and sometimes even violent. I think we need to restrain the violence, but loud and unruly mobs are part of our founding. I don't approve of the idea of jailing people for shouting in protest.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1085667I actually had to ponder these specifics, when protesters would blast air horns at college campus speeches, and claim it was their own free speech.
In a public venue, like on a street corner, no one can claim sole ownership of the venue. Therefore it seems that any speech is valid, up to the various ordinances of the city/county/state. Heckle and jeer all you like. I'll heckle and jeer right back.
In a public venue like a college, we have an organizing body recognized as having authority over the venue.
Yes, I agree with this. I was talking about a street corner discussion or demonstration. Demonstrators and counter-demonstrators can heckle, jeer, and shout at each other. In a venue like a college, which is technically private property, I agree that the organizing body has authority - and they can eject people who disrupt.
Quote from: jhkim;1085688Yes, I agree with this. I was talking about a street corner discussion or demonstration. Demonstrators and counter-demonstrators can heckle, jeer, and shout at each other. In a venue like a college, which is technically private property, I agree that the organizing body has authority - and they can eject people who disrupt.
But don't a lot of colleges take government subsidies? And how much student debt is in federal loans? Not to mention if the "free college" thing ever becomes a reality. Thus dragging the federal government into the equation.
Quote from: jhkim;1085661For the former, yes, I disagree with that tactic - but I believe it is within the bounds of free speech. Free speech isn't limited to only certain debate styles. It's no-holds-barred wrestling as far as debate. People should be free to use logical fallacies, emotional appeals, and any other nonsense. Logic wins not by banning any illogical arguments, but by being *better*.
That's not how fringing and deplatforming works. It's specifically a tactic used to deny people the right to participate in the debate, by claiming they're extremists and thus should be barred from public debate. You specifically mentioned that you believe it's okay for that fringe groups to be denied access to platforms, but that shouldn't be a problem for those holding mainstream views. Yet that's false, because they're attempting to do that to the most mainstream of all political groups, the supporters of the last person to win a general national election. That needs to be flat-out stopped. It's a backhanded and sleazy, but nonetheless a clear and blatant violation of freedom of speech. That's why I'm suspicious of any attempts to say X is beyond the pale, and should not be allowed to be discussed on most public platforms. Fuck. That.
The stage where they try to paint them as fringe? Yes, that's protected speech. But if it becomes a common tactic, the result is people will only be allowed to hear curated, approved opinions. Which means the end of an open society. So even at that stage, it needs to be vigorously opposed at every avenue by calling it out for what it is, which is a monstrous attack on the basic principles of an open democracy. And we really need to return at least the pretense of openness to the mainstream media, probably with a revival of some form of the Fairness Doctrine.
Others have covered shouting down.
Quote from: Pat;1085696The stage where they try to paint them as fringe? Yes, that's protected speech. But if it becomes a common tactic, the result is people will only be allowed to hear curated, approved opinions. Which means the end of an open society. So even at that stage, it needs to be vigorously opposed at every avenue by calling it out
On this point, I don't think we're disagreeing, actually. If you agree that it's protected speech, I agree that it needs to be vigorously opposed by opposing speech.
I dislike framing it that everyone has a fundamental right to a Twitter account. They don't. That's Twitter's business, just like Pundit has a right to ban people from his forums here.
But we should use our free speech to call for more open and diverse platforms rather than echo chambers.
Quote from: jhkim;1085697On this point, I don't think we're disagreeing, actually. If you agree that it's protected speech, I agree that it needs to be vigorously opposed by opposing speech.
I dislike framing it that everyone has a fundamental right to a Twitter account. They don't. That's Twitter's business, just like Pundit has a right to ban people from his forums here.
But we should use our free speech to call for more open and diverse platforms rather than echo chambers.
That's not what I said. I specifically called out which parts should be considered protected speech (but are still wrong), and which parts are a clear violation of the freedom of speech protections.
And regarding the Twitter example you keep bring up just to rebut even though nobody else has ever mentioned it, the problem with social media is either they have to be treated as public platforms, or we need to start enforcing antitrust laws again, and break up Alphabet and Facebook.
Quote from: jhkim;1085697I dislike framing it that everyone has a fundamental right to a Twitter account. They don't. That's Twitter's business, just like Pundit has a right to ban people from his forums here.
Once Jacinda and Emmanuel get finished with Twitter (and Facebook et al) they are going to wish that everyone had a fundamental right to an account.
Quote from: Toadmaster;1085681Republican efforts to suppress votes are pretty well documented by the media.
No they're not. You want to vote? Assuming you're 18, a citizen, don't have your voting privileges revoked for a felony or something of that nature (incidentally, not a fan of that... the franchise should be an irrevocable part of citizenship), register, get your ass down to the polls on election day, and maybe bring some ID, you can vote. Hell, you can vote beforehand, or during extended hours, or using absentee ballots... the system bends over backwards to facilitate it. All the so-called suppression attempts aren't about whether you can or can't vote, or whether you're barred from voting. They're minor administrative hurdles. It's a matter of convenience, not fundamental rights. I'm all in favor of making it even easier, but if the politicians cared they'd be pushing online voting. But they aren't, because they don't care. They're just looking for clear cut tactical advantages that favor their side, whether by requiring voter IDs or loosening the restrictions on absentee ballots. There is no pervasive problems with either voter fraud, or voter suppression, in general elections. All the sturm and drang is just politics.
The DNC was a real issue, but it involved super-delegates, misappropriation, rigging debates, PACs, a false pretense of impartiality, and other things separate from a general election.
The Heckler's Veto is not free speech. Shouting down someone else is the same as trying to silence them because you've made it nigh-impossible for others to hear and make up their own minds.
It takes balls to let your enemy speak freely before you counter their arguments. Cowards blow airhorns.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1085498On your first point, ignore doesn't impact their freedom of speech at all. They can still say whatever they will even if you are not listening to them.
Agreed, but FOR ME (and I'm NOT saying anyone else needs to do this), I feel the need to have other posters free speech in front of me and not hidden from view if I expect to have my free speech posted in front of them.
AKA, if I'm gonna fling poo at their screens, its disingenuous of me to not let them fling poo at my screen. FOR ME, the Ignore button is a form of deplatforming because I'm refusing for their speech to be even heard by me.
Quote from: Pat;1085587It's the same with voter suppression/voter ID. These aren't moral stances, they're tactical positions. The left and right support whichever is currently in their favor.
Exactly. It's all about tactical positions. That's why its VERY WEIRD to have held the same positions over decades and find myself on the opposite political spectrum. Its creepy as fuck to see today's SJWs echoing the much of the same bullshit as the fundamentalist church ladies of the 80s.
And a national voter ID would help AGAINST voter suppression.
Quote from: jhkim;1085697On this point, I don't think we're disagreeing, actually. If you agree that it's protected speech, I agree that it needs to be vigorously opposed by opposing speech.
I dislike framing it that everyone has a fundamental right to a Twitter account. They don't. That's Twitter's business, just like Pundit has a right to ban people from his forums here.
But we should use our free speech to call for more open and diverse platforms rather than echo chambers.
True, no one has a right to a Twitter account. However, what they do have a right to is fair treatment by the site regardless of their views, or a fair disclaimer of the site's biases. Since Twitter, Facebook and others have got into the habit of curating information, they are no longer a platform, but a publisher and can be held to legally account for what is published on their site. If this were applied, then we'd see a lot less of corporate censorship, which I see as the main villain these days in the war on free speech.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1085711And a national voter ID would help AGAINST voter suppression.
It wouldn't help illegal immigrants to vote.
Quote from: Pat;1085701No they're not. You want to vote? Assuming you're 18, a citizen, don't have your voting privileges revoked for a felony or something of that nature (incidentally, not a fan of that... the franchise should be an irrevocable part of citizenship), register, get your ass down to the polls on election day, and maybe bring some ID, you can vote. Hell, you can vote beforehand, or during extended hours, or using absentee ballots... the system bends over backwards to facilitate it. All the so-called suppression attempts aren't about whether you can or can't vote, or whether you're barred from voting. They're minor administrative hurdles. ........
I agree with this. I can totally see why officials would want to see ID of citizens before voting. As immigrants to the US my wife and I managed to get valid IDs within a few days (though we can't vote of course). If you can't even do that, maybe you shouldn't vote. Sometimes, I think this tendency to look after the vulnerable people in the society goes all the way up to and including assuming that they are complete imbecils.
Quote from: Trond;1085745I agree with this. I can totally see why officials would want to see ID of citizens before voting. As immigrants to the US my wife and I managed to get valid IDs within a few days (though we can't vote of course). If you can't even do that, maybe you shouldn't vote. Sometimes, I think this tendency to look after the vulnerable people in the society goes all the way up to and including assuming that they are complete imbeciles.
In Canada, voter ID is a normal requirement. But that just means "photo ID and voter card," and the cards are mailed out automatically.
Quote from: CarlD.;1085770In Canada, voter ID is a normal requirement. But that just means "photo ID and voter card," and the cards are mailed out automatically.
Bunch of racists! [/s]
Quote from: Pat;1085701All the so-called suppression attempts aren't about whether you can or can't vote, or whether you're barred from voting. They're minor administrative hurdles. It's a matter of convenience, not fundamental rights. I'm all in favor of making it even easier, but if the politicians cared they'd be pushing online voting. But they aren't, because they don't care. They're just looking for clear cut tactical advantages that favor their side, whether by requiring voter IDs or loosening the restrictions on absentee ballots. There is no pervasive problems with either voter fraud, or voter suppression, in general elections. All the sturm and drang is just politics.
Placing administrative hurdles that differently affect some voters compared to others has been widely held to be invalid. In principle, I'm OK with there being hurdles to voting - but in practice, these hurdles are almost always trivial to wealthy, well-connected people - but often more difficult for others. For example, if an ID either requires a fee or requires you to go through extra paperwork to prove you're eligible to get it for free - then that's trivial for a wealthy person to just pay, but requires extra work for someone who doesn't have the money.
Quote from: CarlD.;1085770In Canada, voter ID is a normal requirement. But that just means "photo ID and voter card," and the cards are mailed out automatically.
The last part is crucial to me. If the government automatically gets IDs out to people, then it's fairly equal.
Quote from: jhkim;1085780The last part is crucial to me. If the government automatically gets IDs out to people, then it's fairly equal.
This still meets with a surprising resistance in the U.S. because it would require nationalizing at least part of the election system. But that's coming anyway.
It would also effectively create a national ID system... which is also coming anyway.
Quote from: jhkim;1085780Placing administrative hurdles that differently affect some voters compared to others has been widely held to be invalid. In principle, I'm OK with there being hurdles to voting - but in practice, these hurdles are almost always trivial to wealthy, well-connected people - but often more difficult for others. For example, if an ID either requires a fee or requires you to go through extra paperwork to prove you're eligible to get it for free - then that's trivial for a wealthy person to just pay, but requires extra work for someone who doesn't have the money.
The last part is crucial to me. If the government automatically gets IDs out to people, then it's fairly equal.
If you can't be bothered to get an ID, which means you're not able to do all sorts of every day crap like drive a car or have a job, then I don't think you need to be voting.
As a citizen, you have a constitutional right to vote.
There isn't anything in the Constitution about getting a driver's license.
To get a job you need to provide your social security number; you don't necessarily have to provide an ID. Further, it costs money to get an ID - maybe a trivial amount, but it certainly doesn't involve a small amount of time - especially for someone that does not and will not drive a car.
I generally think that you can ask people whether they're legally allowed to vote. If you have reason to believe they are not eligible, that should be addressed legally.
Here's One (https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xw73j4/kris-kobach-wanted-this-20-year-old-to-go-to-jail-for-accidentally-voting-twice).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085801To get a job you need to provide your social security number; you don't necessarily have to provide an ID. Further, it costs money to get an ID - maybe a trivial amount, but it certainly doesn't involve a small amount of time - especially for someone that does not and will not drive a car.
I went without a driver's license for over a decade. I got the same kind of ID from the DMV, with a little message on it that it was only for ID, and not a valid driver's license.
The time and expense were trivial. Maybe an hour at the DMV, and 15 bucks? Something like that.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1085802I went without a driver's license for over a decade. I got the same kind of ID from the DMV, with a little message on it that it was only for ID, and not a valid driver's license.
The time and expense were trivial. Maybe an hour at the DMV, and 15 bucks? Something like that.
Sure. And poll taxes were typically cheap as well - say like the Georgia poll tax of $1 in 1937 which would be $17 today. That's not much. But it creates a different burden for different sorts of people, which was why poll taxes were held to be illegal.
The reality is that it's not hard to create a shift of a few percent in votes by creating a few more hurdles that have a differential effect. If we're going to create additional hurdles to vote, then they shouldn't be ones that favor people with more money and ability - compared to, say, a retired person living on Social Security.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1085802I went without a driver's license for over a decade. I got the same kind of ID from the DMV, with a little message on it that it was only for ID, and not a valid driver's license.
The time and expense were trivial. Maybe an hour at the DMV, and 15 bucks? Something like that.
Greetings!
Exactly, my friend. I routinely carry two forms of valid, picture identification with me at all times; a driver's lisense, and a state-issued identification card. And yes, getting an ID card takes less than $30 and about an hour. It's trivial. Someone can't be bothered to get off their fucking ass to go to the DMV and spend the money for stuffing their grape with two or three lunches from MacDonald's is just fucking BS.
No whining. No fucking excuses.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085801As a citizen, you have a constitutional right to vote.
So you just have to prove that you are a legal citizen, right?
Quote from: jhkim;1085809Sure. And poll taxes were typically cheap as well - say like the Georgia poll tax of $1 in 1937 which would be $17 today. That's not much. But it creates a different burden for different sorts of people, which was why poll taxes were held to be illegal.
Your mildly sarcastic response would make more sense if: A) IDs were huge hurdles to acquire through legal means or B) it was 1937 and not 2019.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085801As a citizen, you have a constitutional right to vote.
There isn't anything in the Constitution about getting a driver's license.
To get a job you need to provide your social security number; you don't necessarily have to provide an ID. Further, it costs money to get an ID - maybe a trivial amount, but it certainly doesn't involve a small amount of time - especially for someone that does not and will not drive a car.
I generally think that you can ask people whether they're legally allowed to vote. If you have reason to believe they are not eligible, that should be addressed legally.
Here's One (https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xw73j4/kris-kobach-wanted-this-20-year-old-to-go-to-jail-for-accidentally-voting-twice).
I have a Constitutional right to own weapons, but no one thinks background checks are a bad idea.
Quote from: jhkim;1085809Sure. And poll taxes were typically cheap as well - say like the Georgia poll tax of $1 in 1937 which would be $17 today. That's not much. But it creates a different burden for different sorts of people, which was why poll taxes were held to be illegal.
The reality is that it's not hard to create a shift of a few percent in votes by creating a few more hurdles that have a differential effect. If we're going to create additional hurdles to vote, then they shouldn't be ones that favor people with more money and ability - compared to, say, a retired person living on Social Security.
I'm not talking about a poll tax. I'm talking about an ID to verifiy the identity of the voter.
We put all kinds of burdens on voters. We require them to be of a certain age, and not be incarcerated. (For now (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/politics/bernie-sanders-prison-voting.html))
We require them to be citizens of this country and residents of a certain precinct.
If you want to argue that we should have a government provided voter's ID, I'm open to that argument.
Quote from: jhkimSure. And poll taxes were typically cheap as well - say like the Georgia poll tax of $1 in 1937 which would be $17 today. That's not much. But it creates a different burden for different sorts of people, which was why poll taxes were held to be illegal.
Quote from: jeff37923;1085816Your mildly sarcastic response would make more sense if: A) IDs were huge hurdles to acquire through legal means or B) it was 1937 and not 2019.
The point is that a $1 poll tax was not a huge hurdle to go through in 1937. It was a minor administrative fee. I'm sure at the time, the argument was that anyone so lazy that they didn't want to pay just a single buck to vote shouldn't really be voting. No excuses or whining - just pay up and vote!
Nevertheless, even a small poll tax like that was held to be unconstitutional. Creating even a minor hurdle was invalid because of creating a different burden on different voters.
Quote from: jhkim;1085826The point is that a $1 poll tax was not a huge hurdle to go through in 1937. It was a minor administrative fee. I'm sure at the time, the argument was that anyone so lazy that they didn't want to pay just a single buck to vote shouldn't really be voting. No excuses or whining - just pay up and vote!
Nevertheless, even a small poll tax like that was held to be unconstitutional. Creating even a minor hurdle was invalid because of creating a different burden on different voters.
So explain why proving that you are a citizen of the USA in order to vote for an election in the USA is unconstitutional.
Quote from: Pat;1085701No they're not. You want to vote? Assuming you're 18, a citizen, don't have your voting privileges revoked for a felony or something of that nature (incidentally, not a fan of that... the franchise should be an irrevocable part of citizenship), register, get your ass down to the polls on election day, and maybe bring some ID, you can vote. Hell, you can vote beforehand, or during extended hours, or using absentee ballots... the system bends over backwards to facilitate it. All the so-called suppression attempts aren't about whether you can or can't vote, or whether you're barred from voting. They're minor administrative hurdles. It's a matter of convenience, not fundamental rights. I'm all in favor of making it even easier, but if the politicians cared they'd be pushing online voting. But they aren't, because they don't care. They're just looking for clear cut tactical advantages that favor their side, whether by requiring voter IDs or loosening the restrictions on absentee ballots. There is no pervasive problems with either voter fraud, or voter suppression, in general elections. All the sturm and drang is just politics.
The DNC was a real issue, but it involved super-delegates, misappropriation, rigging debates, PACs, a false pretense of impartiality, and other things separate from a general election.
I didn't say it was a pervasive issue, but it is a definite thing. The republicans have been less tactful about it in recent years, but you are correct it is not a single party issue. It is just with the current demographics it benefits the democrats to make voting easier which has better optics than trying to restrict voting. Unless of course some independent wackadoodle comes out of nowhere to upset your king making, then you saw the DNC go into full reverse.
California is an open primary state, meaning voters do not have to be a registered democrat or republican to vote in the primary for any party. The democrats challenged the law and won in 2000 so now unaffiliated (or NPP, No Preference Provided) voters can not vote in the presidential primaries with permission. Both parties have traditionally agreed to allow non-affiliated voters to request a democrat or republican ballot allowing them to vote in "their" primary.
Until 2016 this had not been an issue, usually there isn't even a choice to make between candidates by the California primary. In 2016 there were some shenanigans with different dates being provided and a lot of misinformation about the process. The real date to request a democrat ballot was May 31, but some counties were giving dates as early as April 15, when of course it wasn't until May that it was clear Bernie might actually be successful in his challenge and California voters might actually get a choice in June. It is being blamed on bureaucracy, but the DNC was actively trying to retract their permission to allow crossover voters when Bernie was polling way ahead of Hillary among NPP voters in May. Almost 25% of the states voters are registered as No Preference Provided, so this is not a small fringe group.
I have no problem requiring ID to vote, I'm actually shocked that it isn't a requirement. It is how many of these voter ID proposals have been done. There have absolutely been efforts to make voting harder for certain people. Restricting hours, limiting polling places, making new requirements shortly before an election definitely raise doubts as to the sincerity of the efforts. These typically impact lower income voters more than higher income workers.
I own a car, I have paid leave, I have a flexible schedule, I have an address so I have many ways to make time to deal with voting. Vote by mail is awesome, but boy did the politicians here fight against permanent absentee ballots. What a terrible idea, letting people sit at home where they can comfortably take the time to research each candidate and issue without feeling pressure to just hurry up and pick a few dots to punch out.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1085802I went without a driver's license for over a decade. I got the same kind of ID from the DMV, with a little message on it that it was only for ID, and not a valid driver's license.
The time and expense were trivial. Maybe an hour at the DMV, and 15 bucks? Something like that.
More like 6-8 hours these days. It takes an hour just to get a number, so you can wait.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1085823I'm not talking about a poll tax. I'm talking about an ID to verifiy the identity of the voter.
We put all kinds of burdens on voters. We require them to be of a certain age, and not be incarcerated. (For now (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/politics/bernie-sanders-prison-voting.html))
We require them to be citizens of this country and residents of a certain precinct.
If you want to argue that we should have a government provided voter's ID, I'm open to that argument.
Your claim was that $15 wasn't a big deal, and that anyone should be willing to pay that in order to vote. I feel that is effectively a poll tax. To the latter - yes, I'm saying that if the government should just provide people with a free photo ID. It should just issue them out when people turn 18 or are naturalized, which the government is already aware of.
Quote from: jeff37923;1085827So explain why proving that you are a citizen of the USA in order to vote for an election in the USA is unconstitutional.
The burden should be on the government to provide valid identity to citizens. This is already true to a fair degree. The government records births, issues social security numbers, and selective service registration automatically. But for some reason, photo ID is held as a burden on the citizen to pay for. That seems backwards to me. The government is already keeping track of identity for citizens - it should issue photo ID to those citizens, rather than making citizens pay and jump through hoops to get an identity.
Quote from: jhkim;1085780Placing administrative hurdles that differently affect some voters compared to others has been widely held to be invalid. In principle, I'm OK with there being hurdles to voting - but in practice, these hurdles are almost always trivial to wealthy, well-connected people - but often more difficult for others. For example, if an ID either requires a fee or requires you to go through extra paperwork to prove you're eligible to get it for free - then that's trivial for a wealthy person to just pay, but requires extra work for someone who doesn't have the money.
Which is an impossibly stupid standard, because literally any change you could ever make to the voting regulations will affect some voters differently than other. That's just another way of saying nope you can't change the voting rules, ever.
Quote from: jhkim;1085834Your claim was that $15 wasn't a big deal, and that anyone should be willing to pay that in order to vote. I feel that is effectively a poll tax. To the latter - yes, I'm saying that if the government should just provide people with a free photo ID. It should just issue them out when people turn 18 or are naturalized, which the government is already aware of.
The burden should be on the government to provide valid identity to citizens. This is already true to a fair degree. The government records births, issues social security numbers, and selective service registration automatically. But for some reason, photo ID is held as a burden on the citizen to pay for. That seems backwards to me. The government is already keeping track of identity for citizens - it should issue photo ID to those citizens, rather than making citizens pay and jump through hoops to get an identity.
"voter ID" is the new version of "Only land owning (white) males can vote", a turd of with a long history that's been polished for the modern era including the illusion that its ostensible fair because "anyone" can get X amounts of money with the unspoken assumption those that can't, for whatever their reason, are unworthy to vote/have a say in how their nation is ruled (like True Citizens).
Its a solution in search of a problem, formed in part out of GOP/Right wing terror of their shrinking demographic and the growth of of other, often poorer ethnic group's as influential power blocks. The GOP/Right Wing could court them (and have a good change with Hispanics, IME, which skew socially conservative) but trying to put up fences feels easier or something.
Yes, the requirements to get an ID can hamper people from getting, particularly poorer people regardless of ethnic background.
What difference would mailing out vote/national IDs be? It would solve the (nominal and largely imaginary) problem of at the ballot vote fraud, wouldn't cripple the government cost-wise, empower some citizens and make most others lives a little easier (no trip to get an ID voter pass among other things and who wouldn't like to cut another chore out of their life?) and perhaps increase voter participation and enrich our democracy.
Quote from: Toadmaster;1085832More like 6-8 hours these days. It takes an hour just to get a number, so you can wait.
Eh. When I went to get my Enhanced License at the DMV, it took maybe an hour or two. I can't remember the exact time, but it was definitely less than two hours.
Quote from: jhkim;1085834Your claim was that $15 wasn't a big deal, and that anyone should be willing to pay that in order to vote.
That was not my claim at all.
Quote from: CarlD.;1085838What difference would mailing out vote/national IDs be?
So... here's a question that may help illustrate the issue with this: what is the constitutional authority for the Federal government to do that? (It's the Elections Clause.) However, that clause only covers
congressional / federal elections. It does not cover state elections.
And that's only for a voter ID. What else could a national ID be used for? And for each of those activities, what is the constitutional authority for the government to do that?
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1085844So... here's a question that may help illustrate the issue with this: what is the constitutional authority for the Federal government to do that? (It's the Elections Clause.) However, that clause only covers congressional / federal elections. It does not cover state elections.
And that's only for a voter ID. What else could a national ID be used for? And for each of those activities, what is the constitutional authority for the government to do that?
Well, if in person voter fraud is such a massive problem its worth limiting the innate right to vote, sounds like something that ought to be worked out after all the feds pass out/control a large number of other nation wide items.
Edit: Either proves your worth to vote and participate in how things are done by taking on an undue and unnecessary burden and endure Taxation without representation (among other Bad Things) rather than change some documents or don't mess with what's not broken (the lack of requirement for voter ids, seriously what its supposed to do stop is hardly real....and most done by Right Wingers.
Its the same "All Power is Belong to us" vote suppression as represented notions like stripping felons of their right to vote. What are the going to do vote in the Purge? No, the bulk of those effected are the 'wrong' kind of voters any way.
Yes they do, but each one has some form of (sometimes extremely tortured) constitutional authorization.
Quote from: Toadmaster;1085831It is just with the current demographics it benefits the democrats to make voting easier which has better optics than trying to restrict voting.
That's true, but see below.
Quote from: Toadmaster;1085831California is an open primary state, meaning voters do not have to be a registered democrat or republican to vote in the primary for any party. The democrats challenged the law and won in 2000 so now unaffiliated (or NPP, No Preference Provided) voters can not vote in the presidential primaries with permission. Both parties have traditionally agreed to allow non-affiliated voters to request a democrat or republican ballot allowing them to vote in "their" primary.
I hate the primary system, and it is fundamentally unfair. Not only are there inherent problems in a curated selection of the people you're even allowed to vote for, but there are all kinds of procedural problems. Another example, in states without open primaries (i.e. almost all of them), is how they keep putting ballot initiatives on the primary ballot. Ballot initiatives are real changes, real laws, and are supposed to represent the will of the people. But by putting it on the primary ballot, that doubly excludes independents. Because not only are independents not allowed to vote for anyone, but they probably don't even know there is something they
could be voting on because they've been told they're not allowed to vote in primaries.
But that's not a problem with voting in a general election. It's a problem because the government is running the damn primaries, which it shouldn't.
Quote from: Toadmaster;1085831There have absolutely been efforts to make voting harder for certain people.
Absolutely. Every single proposal to change the election is trying to wring a few more fractions of a percentage point advantage for the party pushing the proposal. That's how it works, and there's no way to ever change that. It's inherent in not just the system, but the very
concept.
As you noted, because of the current demographic trends the Democratic party is generally trying to get more people to vote, and the Republican party is generally trying to make it a little harder to vote. Which means the optics favor blue because it sounds better when more people vote than when less people vote. But think about that for a second. None of this amounts to anything significant. None of it amounts to a real burden. It's all just tactics. But if you're arguing that restrictions that might discourage anyone at all from voting are bad, but hey it's great if there are new rules that encourage more people to vote, what you're really doing is creating institutional support for one party over the other. Which is a much more fundamental problem than the voter suppression non-issue.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1085848Yes they do, but each one has some form of (sometimes extremely tortured) constitutional authorization.
There's no reason that a free ID has to be federal. It seems to me that ID could work just as easily under the current Real ID system, issued by the state but conforming to federal standards.
I despise the way that the government uses fees and fines, which inherently make government easy on the rich and hard on the poor.
Quote from: jhkim;1085850There's no reason that a free ID has to be federal. It seems to me that ID could work just as easily under the current Real ID system, issued by the state but conforming to federal standards.
I despise the way that the government uses fees and fines, which inherently make government easy on the rich and hard on the poor.
Good thoughts. The issue feels more emotional than rational, a reaction various fears, some marginally justified (theoretically someone could organize direct voter fraud on a level where it would have meaningful impact. More likely on a state level which lends more credence to the idea of voter IDs being a State rather than Fed matter) some...not so much.
Quote from: jhkim;1085850There's no reason that a free ID has to be federal. It seems to me that ID could work just as easily under the current Real ID system, issued by the state but conforming to federal standards.
I despise the way that the government uses fees and fines, which inherently make government easy on the rich and hard on the poor.
For a federal election, it either would have to be done by the Federal government or authorized by the Federal government for each state to do. (The Elections Clause, again.)
Quote from: Pat;1085849But that's not a problem with voting in a general election. It's a problem because the government is running the damn primaries, which it shouldn't.
We have a winner.
Quote from: jhkim;1085850I despise the way that the government uses fees and fines, which inherently make government easy on the rich and hard on the poor.
I never thought I would see you advocating for less government and regulations in order for citizens to keep more of their money.
Quote from: CarlD.;1085854Good thoughts. The issue feels more emotional than rational, a reaction various fears, some marginally justified (theoretically someone could organize direct voter fraud on a level where it would have meaningful impact. More likely on a state level which lends more credence to the idea of voter IDs being a State rather than Fed matter) some...not so much.
This is actually pretty darned accurate. The Heritage Foundation did a study a few years back of positively identified voter fraud: not one was in a Federal election (this was prior to 2016, where there are... 2, I believe: and both were attempting to vote multiple times for then-Candidate Trump). They were all at State or Local levels. The risk-v-reward of violating a federal election law for the average voter is just not there. But at the state and local level, it certainly is. (Though, even then, the numbers were relatively rare and pretty evenly spread across the country.)
Quote from: jhkim;1085834The burden should be on the government to provide valid identity to citizens. This is already true to a fair degree. The government records births, issues social security numbers, and selective service registration automatically. But for some reason, photo ID is held as a burden on the citizen to pay for. That seems backwards to me. The government is already keeping track of identity for citizens - it should issue photo ID to those citizens, rather than making citizens pay and jump through hoops to get an identity.
No, because the citizen has a right not to vote. Since this right is also fundamental, citizens who wish to vote register to do so. They affirmatively opt-in to voting.
What this absolutely prevents, is government requiring everyone to whom they've issued a national ID, to vote. No "we've checked the ballots records and your ID was not presented, comrade."
Having an absolute guarantee against that is worth more than 30 minutes of a citizen's time every few years, as part of an affirmative voting process.
Quote from: EOTB;1085884No, because the citizen has a right not to vote. Since this right is also fundamental, citizens who wish to vote register to do so. They affirmatively opt-in to voting.
What this absolutely prevents, is government requiring everyone to whom they've issued a national ID, to vote. No "we've checked the ballots records and your ID was not presented, comrade."
Having an absolute guarantee against that is worth more than 30 minutes of a citizen's time every few years, as part of an affirmative voting process.
Your logic here seems a little strained, could you clarify please?
If no one is issued a national ID, the federal government - the level farthest from the people, and least responsive - must go through other entities to abuse the system. No federal government is going to get silent consent from every state government to abuse state records, as many state govs are held by opposition parties in any election year.
The population were averse to national IDs for reasons of abuse, not logistics. If the levels of time/effort burden discussed as unconsitutional were always considered so, then all those people who traveled for hours by horseback to the nearest courthouse were really getting hosed.
Quote from: EOTB;1085892If no one is issued a national ID, the federal government - the level farthest from the people, and least responsive - must go through other entities to abuse the system. No federal government is going to get silent consent from every state government to abuse state records, as many state govs are held by opposition parties in any election year.
The population were averse to national IDs for reasons of abuse, not logistics. If the levels of time/effort burden discussed as unconsitutional were always considered so, then all those people who traveled for hours by horseback to the nearest courthouse were really getting hosed.
Thanks
Quote from: jeff37923;1085827So explain why proving that you are a citizen of the USA in order to vote for an election in the USA is unconstitutional.
Quote from: jhkim;1085834The burden should be on the government to provide valid identity to citizens. This is already true to a fair degree. The government records births, issues social security numbers, and selective service registration automatically. But for some reason, photo ID is held as a burden on the citizen to pay for. That seems backwards to me. The government is already keeping track of identity for citizens - it should issue photo ID to those citizens, rather than making citizens pay and jump through hoops to get an identity.
So how is this unconstitutional?
Come on now, without a photo ID how are people supposed to conveniently link the actual person with the information in records? Fingerprints? DNA testing? Barcode tattoos? RFID chips?
Quote from: jhkim;1085826Nevertheless, even a small poll tax like that was held to be unconstitutional.
Wrongly held. Nothing in the US Constitution about that.
Quote from: Toadmaster;1085831Vote by mail is awesome, but boy did the politicians here fight against permanent absentee ballots. What a terrible idea, letting people sit at home where they can comfortably take the time to research each candidate and issue without feeling pressure to just hurry up and pick a few dots to punch out
Heh. We have a huge well known problem with our easy absentee ballots here. They are a recipe for "community" based corruption - Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Somalis etc - ballots are handed en masse to 'community leaders' who have underlings fill them out and mail them in. It gives those 'leaders' huge personal power.
Quote from: S'mon;1085925Wrongly held. Nothing in the US Constitution about that.
Oh? Huh...
Quote from: US Constitution Amend. XXIVSection 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Quote from: EOTB;1085892The population were averse to national IDs for reasons of abuse, not logistics. If the levels of time/effort burden discussed as unconsitutional were always considered so, then all those people who traveled for hours by horseback to the nearest courthouse were really getting hosed.
I agree with your reasoning completely on this one EOTB.
However, I do think we are approaching a point where the government is also going to make a claim that for logistical reasons we need a national ID (which I am not in favor of), and that there is no longer enough people & states opposing it to prevent it from happening.
A Social Security card is a defacto National ID, with all the problems that it entails.
Failure to provide a SSN is a problem with getting a job that a DL isn't. For my current job I did submit ID and had a background check, but not every job I've had required a photo ID.
Quote from: jhkimThe burden should be on the government to provide valid identity to citizens. This is already true to a fair degree. The government records births, issues social security numbers, and selective service registration automatically. But for some reason, photo ID is held as a burden on the citizen to pay for. That seems backwards to me. The government is already keeping track of identity for citizens - it should issue photo ID to those citizens, rather than making citizens pay and jump through hoops to get an identity.
Quote from: jeff37923;1085910So how is this unconstitutional?
Come on now, without a photo ID how are people supposed to conveniently link the actual person with the information in records? Fingerprints? DNA testing? Barcode tattoos? RFID chips?
I'm not arguing against photo ID. I'm saying that - particularly if we require a photo ID to vote - the government should make an effort that every citizen is issued a photo ID, and not charge money for it. We should not say that the burden is on the citizen to negotiate through a system and pay to get a photo ID.
Requiring people to jump through hoops and pay money in order to vote is effectively a poll tax, which is definitely unconstitutional (as Tanin pointed out - thanks for the reference, Tanin).
Quote from: jhkim;1085971Requiring people to jump through hoops and pay money in order to vote is effectively a poll tax, which is definitely unconstitutional (as Tanin pointed out - thanks for the reference, Tanin).
Any government system is going to have hoops to jump through. You can't process and distrubute stuff without some kind of organization. This creates a Catch-22, where you have to provide a free ID card, and distritute it without it costing any money or having an organized system to distribute them.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085962A Social Security card is a defacto National ID, with all the problems that it entails.
Failure to provide a SSN is a problem with getting a job that a DL isn't. For my current job I did submit ID and had a background check, but not every job I've had required a photo ID.
It's a really terrible one too.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085962A Social Security card is a defacto National ID, with all the problems that it entails.
So how do you match the Social Security Card with the actual person without photo ID?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085962Failure to provide a SSN is a problem with getting a job that a DL isn't. For my current job I did submit ID and had a background check, but not every job I've had required a photo ID.
I've had several jobs which didn't require an SSN or a photo ID. They all involved me mowing lawns as a teenager for $5-$10 a pop.
Quote from: jeff37923;1085981I've had several jobs which didn't require an SSN or a photo ID. They all involved me mowing lawns as a teenager for $5-$10 a pop.
That's one way to stay off the grid...
Quote from: jeff37923;1085981So how do you match the Social Security Card with the actual person without photo ID?
So in another thread I asked if you were an idiot. I don't want to take the overwhelming evidence that you are at face value, but please think about this
very carefully.
Before you had your first photo ID, how did you prove that the documents you provided belonged to you? Your birth certificate did not have your picture on it. Your social security card did not have your picture on it. They didn't take a print of your foot to match up against the one that the hospital you were born in might have been kind enough to provide. So how does your photo ID prove any more positively that you are who you claim to be than the documents you provided when you acquired it?
But let's set that aside for a moment. How many times have you had to verify your identity
without an ID Card? I have to do it every time I talk to my bank over the phone. Clearly we accept that there are situations where we can be sure enough of the identity of an individual without Photo ID. In fact, I get my tax return without furnishing photo-proof of my identity.
But even if we say that the only way to be sure of an individual is with a photo ID,
what about fake IDs? I've lived in college towns - they're ubiquitous.
There are lots of ways to identify people who have registered to vote that don't require a photo ID. Prosecuting people who vote illegally is the best way to ensure that people don't take illegal voting lightly. Photo ID laws don't do anything to reduce
illegal voting; they are designed to reduce voting among people who are less likely to have those types of IDs (college students, non-drivers, etc).
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1085980It's a really terrible one too.
Which is one of its few virtues.
Quote from: jeff37923;1085981I've had several jobs which didn't require an SSN or a photo ID. They all involved me mowing lawns as a teenager for $5-$10 a pop.
In my early 20s I worked on a farm for $10/hr cash. It was all under the table and tax-free and no documents were ever asked for. I was one of the few that spoke English and had a driver's license (with F endorsement). The former made me a crew chief (the farmer didn't want to struggle with Spanglish), and the latter didn't matter for holding the job, just for driving the trucks between locations.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1085976Any government system is going to have hoops to jump through. You can't process and distrubute stuff without some kind of organization. This creates a Catch-22, where you have to provide a free ID card, and distritute it without it costing any money or having an organized system to distribute them.
How is this a Catch-22?!? That's like saying removing poll taxes is a Catch-22, because someone has to pay for the voting machines and other voting system costs. In practice, though, we were able to get rid of poll taxes - and the system didn't collapse. The government has funds to do things like buy voting machines as well as tons of other stuff. Ultimately, these are paid for by taxes - but that places the burden of it as appropriately as any other government service - like Social Security cards, Selective Service registration, and so forth.
The issue with poll taxes and other hurdles is that they create a barrier that favor some voters over others. It's impossible for the system to be perfect, and voting to have exactly the same barrier for everyone - but that doesn't mean that we can't try to make things more even and fair.
Quote from: jhkim;1086008How is this a Catch-22?!? That's like saying removing poll taxes is a Catch-22, because someone has to pay for the voting machines and other voting system costs. In practice, though, we were able to get rid of poll taxes - and the system didn't collapse. The government has funds to do things like buy voting machines as well as tons of other stuff. Ultimately, these are paid for by taxes - but that places the burden of it as appropriately as any other government service - like Social Security cards, Selective Service registration, and so forth.
The issue with poll taxes and other hurdles is that they create a barrier that favor some voters over others. It's impossible for the system to be perfect, and voting to have exactly the same barrier for everyone - but that doesn't mean that we can't try to make things more even and fair.
"But if you stop ALL traffic accidents, why have traffic laws or require licencing at all?
Quote from: jhkim;1086008How is this a Catch-22?!? That's like saying removing poll taxes is a Catch-22, because someone has to pay for the voting machines and other voting system costs. In practice, though, we were able to get rid of poll taxes - and the system didn't collapse. The government has funds to do things like buy voting machines as well as tons of other stuff. Ultimately, these are paid for by taxes - but that places the burden of it as appropriately as any other government service - like Social Security cards, Selective Service registration, and so forth.
I felt like you were casting a pretty wide net. I could argue that since everything provided by the government is paid for by tax dollars, that any government expenditure towards facilitating voting is an indirect poll tax.
QuoteRequiring people to jump through hoops and pay money in order to vote is effectively a poll tax, which is definitely unconstitutional (as Tanin pointed out - thanks for the reference, Tanin).
Another interesting, to me anyway, about Tang and those of its target audience is willing to indulged "positive sexism/racism/other ism" IE: if the broad brush sterotype if something positive its Okay or at worse ignored. Fro example even with the intense antipathy most of feel for the Trumps, they're very will to take Melania ad Ivanka is the best light possible or assume it was Bad Men that steered them onto the wrong course when factually that doesn't appear to be the case. These were intelligent, empowered women that knew what they were getting into and who they were dealing with.They were not wide eyed naifs kidnapped into the Dark Lord's castle or whatever. But they are given slack because they are women.
Hell, I've seen some hardcases tear into Baron, a juvenile but apparently an acceptable target because he is, well, a he.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1086022I felt like you were casting a pretty wide net. I could argue that since everything provided by the government is paid for by tax dollars, that any government expenditure towards facilitating voting is an indirect poll tax.
The core logic is - Person A registers and votes. Person B doesn't. Does person A have to pay more money compared to person B? For the vast majority of taxes and fees, the cost is the same regardless of whether you vote or not. The non-voter still has to pay taxes.
But if something is a prerequisite to voting that costs money, but that the non-voter doesn't need - then yes, it is effectively a poll tax.
Quote from: jhkim;1086036The core logic is - Person A registers and votes. Person B doesn't. Does person A have to pay more money compared to person B? For the vast majority of taxes and fees, the cost is the same regardless of whether you vote or not. The non-voter still has to pay taxes.
But if something is a prerequisite to voting that costs money, but that the non-voter doesn't need - then yes, it is effectively a poll tax.
Like gas to drive to the polling station? Vehicle depreciation? A bus ticket? Potential wages lost for the time spend researching candidates? The opportunity cost, when you could have been training or sending out resumes?
At some point, a poll tax has to be a poll tax and not every incidental cost
Quote from: Pat;1086039Like gas to drive to the polling station? Vehicle depreciation? A bus ticket? Potential wages lost for the time spend researching candidates? The opportunity cost, when you could have been training or sending out resumes?
At some point, a poll tax has to be a poll tax and not every incidental cost
First of all, incidental expenses are different than required government fees.
Nevertheless, I think that many of these are reasonable points to consider. Obviously, nothing is perfect, but we should try to minimize the time and expense of getting to a polling station - which I think most states do. If getting to a polling station is too far a trip for too many people, then I think that is a potential problem.
Also, timing elections so that people have to take off from work is a problem - which drives the extended voting hours that many states handle. Many countries hold their elections on weekends - or make voting day a national holiday - rather than possibly forcing people to take time off from work. That seems like a better idea to me. I'm not clear why the heck we hold elections on a non-holiday Tuesday in the U.S.
Quote from: jhkim;1086043Also, timing elections so that people have to take off from work is a problem - which drives the extended voting hours that many states handle. Many countries hold their elections on weekends - or make voting day a national holiday - rather than possibly forcing people to take time off from work. That seems like a better idea to me. I'm not clear why the heck we hold elections on a non-holiday Tuesday in the U.S.
WA lets everyone do a mail in ballot.
Quote from: jhkim;1086043Nevertheless, I think that many of these are reasonable points to consider.
I think they're reasonable to consider.
I don't think they're a constitutional right.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1086049WA lets everyone do a mail in ballot.
I'm OK with that - I do mail-in ballots myself in California, but I am a little wary. It seems to me that there are a lot more potential for fraud with mail-in ballots than with voting without photo ID. I don't believe claims that there are millions of illegal votes with each election, but I'd like to see some more enforcement to prosecute the small amount of voter fraud there is.
For comparison, S'mon earlier claimed that absentee ballots are a huge source of voter fraud in the UK.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085992So in another thread I asked if you were an idiot. I don't want to take the overwhelming evidence that you are at face value, but please think about this very carefully.
And having an
idiot make hash of your arguments so easily just pisses you off, doesn't it.....
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085992Before you had your first photo ID, how did you prove that the documents you provided belonged to you? Your birth certificate did not have your picture on it. Your social security card did not have your picture on it. They didn't take a print of your foot to match up against the one that the hospital you were born in might have been kind enough to provide. So how does your photo ID prove any more positively that you are who you claim to be than the documents you provided when you acquired it?
Ah, you see the crux of the problem at last!
That in order to legally vote, then the voter must prove that they are a legal citizen. Why would citizens fight against such common sense?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085992But let's set that aside for a moment. How many times have you had to verify your identity without an ID Card? I have to do it every time I talk to my bank over the phone. Clearly we accept that there are situations where we can be sure enough of the identity of an individual without Photo ID. In fact, I get my tax return without furnishing photo-proof of my identity.
So if you need photo ID for those actions, why not for voting? Is voting less important than banking or taxes?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085992But even if we say that the only way to be sure of an individual is with a photo ID, what about fake IDs? I've lived in college towns - they're ubiquitous.
Note how I have not stated that a photo ID was the only form of identification, but what was needed to match records to the individual.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085992There are lots of ways to identify people who have registered to vote that don't require a photo ID.
Name five if you can.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085992Prosecuting people who vote illegally is the best way to ensure that people don't take illegal voting lightly. Photo ID laws don't do anything to reduce illegal voting; they are designed to reduce voting among people who are less likely to have those types of IDs (college students, non-drivers, etc).
Non-driver photo IDs exist and are used to identify voters. College IDs are specific to the college and not the local, state, or federal area where voting occurs. So you agree that requiring a photo ID to vote does reduce the number of people who shouldn't be voting, thank you.
Greetings!
Ah, yes. I don't like what you're saying, so of course, you are an idiot.
Liberals absolutely love engaging in name-calling and belittling a person that doesn't agree with their emotion-based hysterical views.
The wonderful ad hominem fallacy. If I can't defeat your argument by presenting a persuasive argument using reason, evidence, and facts--well, just start the name-calling, and character assassination. Gotta love these supposedly "educated" folks. It's a shame they failed Philosophy 101, where they should have learned the basic rules of Logic, and proper debate protocols.
Screeching to the audience, whipping up a frothing mob of fanatics, baying to have the heretic burned at the stake is so much more satisfying.:D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085962A Social Security card is a defacto National ID, with all the problems that it entails.
Failure to provide a SSN is a problem with getting a job that a DL isn't. For my current job I did submit ID and had a background check, but not every job I've had required a photo ID.
Quote from: jeff37923;1085981So how do you match the Social Security Card with the actual person without photo ID?
I've had several jobs which didn't require an SSN or a photo ID. They all involved me mowing lawns as a teenager for $5-$10 a pop.
Jeff is right, it has been Federal Law that employers verify a right to work with a passport, or photo ID
and SSN or birth certificate since 1986. You've either been working under the table, working for employers who aren't following the law or haven't changed jobs since 1986.
https://www.uscis.gov/i-9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_I-9
I've had to complete the I-9 process even when changing positions with the same employer.
Quote from: S'mon;1085928Heh. We have a huge well known problem with our easy absentee ballots here. They are a recipe for "community" based corruption - Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Somalis etc - ballots are handed en masse to 'community leaders' who have underlings fill them out and mail them in. It gives those 'leaders' huge personal power.
That was one issue raised here against it, husbands telling their wife and adult children how to vote, people paying for votes, landlords threatening evictions etc.
I'm not aware of any documented cases of that occurring, but do-gooders cost me free pie dammit. Had a local place that would give people a free slice of pie if you showed your "I voted" sticker. Bastards challenged it in court and won saying that it could sway voters even though there was absolutely no politics involved, just a business trying to encourage people to go vote.
Pie is so much tastier when it is free. :D
Quote from: Toadmaster;1086064Jeff is right, it has been Federal Law that employers verify a right to work with a passport, or photo ID and SSN or birth certificate since 1986. You've either been working under the table, working for employers who aren't following the law or haven't changed jobs since 1986.
Or they viewed him as a subcontractor.
EDIT: You also don't require a photo ID for this. The I-9 accepts your Voter Registration, which, in Indiana, is not a photo ID. You can also use your draft record, which is not a photo ID. Native American Tribal Documents are also not all photo IDs, and (for people under 18) a report card, hospital record (any hospital record), and a day-care or nursery school record is good enough.
QuoteI've had to complete the I-9 process even when changing positions with the same employer.
Overzealous compliance on their part. Isn't required when you're changing positions unless you did something that would give a reasonable person belief that you are no longer authorized to work in the US.
Quote from: Toadmaster;1086064Jeff is right, it has been Federal Law that employers verify a right to work with a passport, or photo ID and SSN or birth certificate since 1986. You've either been working under the table, working for employers who aren't following the law or haven't changed jobs since 1986.
Or work as an independent contractor.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1086084Or they viewed him as a subcontractor.
EDIT: You also don't require a photo ID for this. The I-9 accepts your Voter Registration, which, in Indiana, is not a photo ID. You can also use your draft record, which is not a photo ID. Native American Tribal Documents are also not all photo IDs, and (for people under 18) a report card, hospital record (any hospital record), and a day-care or nursery school record is good enough.
Overzealous compliance on their part. Isn't required when you're changing positions unless you did something that would give a reasonable person belief that you are no longer authorized to work in the US.
A subcontractor works for somebody, somebody who is required to verify employment eligibility. If the employee is not a subcontractor, and for some reason there is an investigation guess who gets held accountable. "I didn't know they were my employee" isn't going to be a very good defense.
A self-employed independent contractor does not have to fill out an I-9, but someone hiring said person for a job is technically buying a service, not providing employment.
None of those documents you listed can be used alone, and school ID is only allowed if it is a photo ID. Most are column B items, Tribal documents are listed in B&C, but are either or, the same document can not be used to satisfy both columns.
Hospital record, report card, and daycare / nursery school record are only accepted for those under 18 (which you note) and again still require a Column C item. The Feds set some broad rules for employing minors, but most states have their own rules that must be met, and many require a work permit for workers under 18, so they will be providing employment eligibility in addition to that required on the I-9.
Thorough, not overzealous. Prior HR person / agency may not have done their due diligence, and it was HR policy at all the Federal agencies I worked for. 4 agencies, 9 locations, all did it.
Quote from: Toadmaster;1086105A subcontractor works for somebody, somebody who is required to verify employment eligibility. If the employee is not a subcontractor, and for some reason there is an investigation guess who gets held accountable. "I didn't know they were my employee" isn't going to be a very good defense.
A self-employed independent contractor does not have to fill out an I-9, but someone hiring said person for a job is technically buying a service, not providing employment.
This part of the law treats the two terms interchangeably. (Yes, it's nonintuitive and weird.)
QuoteNone of those documents you listed can be used alone, and school ID is only allowed if it is a photo ID. Most are column B items, Tribal documents are listed in B&C, but are either or, the same document can not be used to satisfy both columns.
Hospital record, report card, and daycare / nursery school record are only accepted for those under 18 (which you note) and again still require a Column C item. The Feds set some broad rules for employing minors, but most states have their own rules that must be met, and many require a work permit for workers under 18, so they will be providing employment eligibility in addition to that required on the I-9.
And yet I can create combos from B + C that would not require a photo ID, which was my only point. (For instance: Voter Registration or Draft Record + Social Security card.)
QuoteThorough, not overzealous. Prior HR person / agency may not have done their due diligence, and it was HR policy at all the Federal agencies I worked for. 4 agencies, 9 locations, all did it.
None of the Federal ones I worked at requires it except the first when I was a lowly GS-7 intern.
The only reason to oppose Voter ID is because you want illegals voting.
If you fear the costs of the ID, its easy enough to subsidize. Anyone on welfare or social security can get a free one.
Anyone with a job who doesn't want to spend $20 on an ID sometime in their life wasn't going to vote anyway. Let's be honest. If voting means so much to you, you would skip a few snacks for just one month.
And its not an issue of people not having time. People make the time to go to the DMV, go shopping, do chores and all sorts of shit they'd prefer not to do, but do anyway. Again, if voting means so much to you, you'd make the time.
And it can dodge the poll tax complaints if you can take that $20 off your taxes.
But none of that matters because the Democrats are sure the illegals are in their pocket. If illegals voted Republican, we'd all have Voter ID.
Both parties only care about voting rights when their power is endangered.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085992......... Photo ID laws don't do anything to reduce illegal voting; they are designed to reduce voting among people who are less likely to have those types of IDs (college students, non-drivers, etc).
Quote from: Spinachcat;1086179The only reason to oppose Voter ID is because you want illegals voting.......
I think this perfectly illustrates how people are demonizing their political opponents nowadays. Asking for photo ID is done
on purpose to exclude certain legal voters from voting, vs. you don't want voter ID
because you want illegals to vote. The opposition is eeevil!
There is no valid opposition to Voter ID.
If we didn't require driver's licenses to drive, more people would drive. That's not a good thing.
Its truly amazing how doubleplus extra certification can be demanded for everything EXCEPT voting.
There is zero reason college students or non-drivers can't get a Voter ID. If a college student can't figure out how to get a Voter ID, that dumbfuck doesn't belong in college.
The facts are too obvious: the Left is fully committed to promoting massive illegal immigration and stopping Voter ID. Its not rocket science to figure out the combo move.
It's like gerrymandering and redistricting (when either party does it). They tell you a dozen bullshit reasons, but the truth is easy and obvious. It's always a power play.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1086211There is no valid opposition to Voter ID.
If we didn't require driver's licenses to drive, more people would drive. That's not a good thing.
Its truly amazing how doubleplus extra certification can be demanded for everything EXCEPT voting.
There is zero reason college students or non-drivers can't get a Voter ID. If a college student can't figure out how to get a Voter ID, that dumbfuck doesn't belong in college.
The facts are too obvious: the Left is fully committed to promoting massive illegal immigration and stopping Voter ID. Its not rocket science to figure out the combo move.
It's like gerrymandering and redistricting (when either party does it). They tell you a dozen bullshit reasons, but the truth is easy and obvious. It's always a power play.
Here's a quick list of things you need an ID for in North Carolina. Need an ID for all of these things, but not to vote? Bullshit! "Voter suppression" is agenda driven fear tactics designed to get ignorant people to vote Democrat.
Register for school
Get a library card
Apply for a loan/mortgage
Open bank account
Apply for food stamps
Apply for welfare
Apply for Medicaid or Social Security
Apply for Unemployment or a Job
Drive/buy/rent a car
Get on an airplane
Get married
Buy a firearm
Buy alcohol
Buy cigarettes
Rent a hotel room
Apply for hunting or fishing license
Pick up a prescription
Enter a casino
Donate blood
Buy certain video games
Purchase certain cold medications
Quote from: Spinachcat;1086211There is no valid opposition to Voter ID.
If one is opposed to a national ID, one might be concerned that a voter ID would morph into a national ID.
Quote from: jhkim;1086054I'm OK with that - I do mail-in ballots myself in California, but I am a little wary. It seems to me that there are a lot more potential for fraud with mail-in ballots than with voting without photo ID. I don't believe claims that there are millions of illegal votes with each election, but I'd like to see some more enforcement to prosecute the small amount of voter fraud there is.
For comparison, S'mon earlier claimed that absentee ballots are a huge source of voter fraud in the UK.
I'm fine with making voting day a national holiday. I would prefer that and require in-person vote hand-ins, with some mechanism for people with medical reasons for not transporting themselves to the polls.
Vote my mail is a dangerous abuse possibility. It seems like "we found another six boxes of votes" happens a lot more now that vote by mail is the norm in some states.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1086261If one is opposed to a national ID, one might be concerned that a voter ID would morph into a national ID.
States can verify identity as they've done since invested with that authority. All that's necessary is that someone voting within a state's boundaries is verified by that state.
Quote from: Trond;1086209I think this perfectly illustrates how people are demonizing their political opponents nowadays. Asking for photo ID is done on purpose to exclude certain legal voters from voting, vs. you don't want voter ID because you want illegals to vote. The opposition is eeevil!
No, that's only what Evil SJWs Cntrl-Leftists do. And only the Sith deal in absolutes, BTW.
Quote from: EOTB;1086274Vote my mail is a dangerous abuse possibility. It seems like "we found another six boxes of votes" happens a lot more now that vote by mail is the norm in some states.
I'm not too familiar with what happens behind the curtains. How would mail in ballots be more suceptible to this kind of thing?
Quote from: EOTB;1086274I'm fine with making voting day a national holiday.
Make all voting happen on 4th of July!
Or 9/11.
BTW, if we have a national voting holiday, the TV will be blaring "Voting Day Sales!" ads for weeks. "Vote, then come on down to Crazy Bill's Auto BBQ for 20% off!!"
My bet? More people will go to the Voting Day sales at the mall than to the voting booth.
Quote from: EOTB;1086274Vote my mail is a dangerous abuse possibility. It seems like "we found another six boxes of votes" happens a lot more now that vote by mail is the norm in some states.
Agreed, but the future is online voting via mobile.
If its good enough for American Idol, its good enough for lesser concerns, like the fate of our democracy.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1086261If one is opposed to a national ID, one might be concerned that a voter ID would morph into a national ID.
We have a national ID via our Social Security Number. That's why the IRS uses it for identification.
It's a poor form of identification considering it's not unique to you.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1086326We have a national ID via our Social Security Number. That's why the IRS uses it for identification.
Take it away, Grey!
[video=youtube;Erp8IAUouus]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erp8IAUouus[/youtube]
I realize it's become a de facto national ID card, but we still don't have an offical national ID.
There would be a certain sense of forgetful irony, if SSN were used to justify national ID, since the gov had to bend over backwards to assure people it would never be used for such a thing, in order to hold back demands to squash SSNs when they premiered.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1086303I'm not too familiar with what happens behind the curtains. How would mail in ballots be more suceptible to this kind of thing?
The ballots can be mailed in a month ahead of time, so the state gov knows long before election day where the wind is blowing on certain issues - on election day they only count the last-minute voters and add to the total. They also know everyone who was mailed a ballot that isn't included in the vote count. They have spare ballots sitting around and can print out the voter specific labels that make them official with the click of a button - the signatures aren't ever "matched" to anything...it's just "was it signed? Yes/no"
You're not supposed to fill out anyone else's ballot for them, or trade your ballot to someone for something else, or give your ballot to political action groups for filling in - but these things aren't meaningfully prevented except by honor.
Voting in person is important because it gives a visual sense of how many votes there are. Otherwise it can be as real as facebook's advertising reach claims. "No, really! We had 99% voter participation on this important issue!"
Quote from: EOTB;1086341There would be a certain sense of forgetful irony, if SSN were used to justify national ID, since the gov had to bend over backwards to assure people it would never be used for such a thing, in order to hold back demands to squash SSNs when they premiered.
True, but we now have corporations microchipping their (willing?) employees.
A National ID card is tame by comparison...but we'll soon be chipping babies (for their protection dontcha know) so remembering the past has become rather moot.
Then is the point of free speech to shit post with flair, since it's all a fait accompli?
Quote from: Spinachcat;1086345True, but we now have corporations microchipping their (willing?) employees.
A National ID card is tame by comparison...but we'll soon be chipping babies (for their protection dontcha know) so remembering the past has become rather moot.
Those who forget the past are doomed to use the newest technologies to create a totalitarian state that makes the dystopian fiction of the last century look like pleasant dreams.
Quote from: EOTB;1086349Then is the point of free speech to shit post with flair, since it's all a fait accompli?
For me? Yeah, that's pretty much true. From where I'm standing, the writing on the wall is screaming in neon.
For others? I support however they wish to use their free speech while it lasts.
Quote from: EOTB;1086341The ballots can be mailed in a month ahead of time, so the state gov knows long before election day where the wind is blowing on certain issues - on election day they only count the last-minute voters and add to the total. They also know everyone who was mailed a ballot that isn't included in the vote count. They have spare ballots sitting around and can print out the voter specific labels that make them official with the click of a button - the signatures aren't ever "matched" to anything...it's just "was it signed? Yes/no"
We saw a little bit of this issue in Hamilton County in 2018 (the first issue anyway; where the wind is blowing). The county knew whether or not Joe Donnolley was ahead for over a month ahead of time, but also had the historical data that said, "In Hamilton County, vast bulk of votes cast via mail in ballots are Democrat." Of course, this was also contrasted with more than 2/3rds of the vote was still done on election day, so if the ballot was trending Republican before election day, the GOP knew it had already won the county basically.
Quote from: EOTB;1086341The ballots can be mailed in a month ahead of time, so the state gov knows long before election day where the wind is blowing on certain issues - on election day they only count the last-minute voters and add to the total. They also know everyone who was mailed a ballot that isn't included in the vote count. They have spare ballots sitting around and can print out the voter specific labels that make them official with the click of a button - the signatures aren't ever "matched" to anything...it's just "was it signed? Yes/no"
You're not supposed to fill out anyone else's ballot for them, or trade your ballot to someone for something else, or give your ballot to political action groups for filling in - but these things aren't meaningfully prevented except by honor.
Voting in person is important because it gives a visual sense of how many votes there are. Otherwise it can be as real as facebook's advertising reach claims. "No, really! We had 99% voter participation on this important issue!"
You've hit on the problems.
We have mail in votes on everything in Oregon. There have been a few cases in which people have been caught having voted in two states, and a few by foreigners. Not many, but some.
Someone else filing out a ballot is a problem that is very hard to analyze. Vote by mail makes it much easier for senior citizens to vote, but it also makes it possible for someone else to fill in their ballot. And it absolutely does happen. There just doesn't seem to be anyone interested in investigating it.
I believe no mail in votes should be counted, let alone opened, until the very end. The reason for this is as you mentioned, but that in our case, we've had politicians ask for 'volunteers' among their staff to go out and collect ballots door to door. They cannot be allowed to act on privileged information. Also, it should be illegal to submit someone's vote for them. We had a case in Oregon in the last (local) election in which one group collected ballots and then failed to turn them in. A fine just isn't sufficient for this.
Oregon democrat dominated legislature also supported registering people at DMV, and the seeming logic to this is that it would increase the number of registered democrats in Oregon. But a strange thing happened - it made it possible for a third party to be recognized in the last gubernatorial election and a surge in 'independents'.
Personally I'd like election day to be election week, with ballots mailed out a month in advance, but hand delivered to voting points. This would allow people to make a well informed decision (time to really go over the ballot at their leisure), it would help to ensure they live at their address of record (ballot delivered by mail, although certainly ballots would be needed on site to deal with lost ballots), and with a week to turn in the ballot it helps people work around their schedule (open 24 hours, for 7 days). If you don't want to vote, you still don't have too. Collection points would have to be wide spread and accessible, maybe post offices, fire stations would also be an option since they are well distributed in most communities and often already used as a voting point. Absentee ballots would still be necessary for people who are away from home for extended periods (military, long haul truckers, business travel, extended recreational travel) but the need would be greatly reduced.
When turned in the voter proves that they are who they say they are (figure that out), and under oath verifies that they are making their vote of their own free will without coercion.
Intentional coercion of a voter (through threat or reward) should be considered an act of treason. At a minimum someone who accepted the sale of their vote could be on the hook for perjury since they had to verify that they had voted there own free will. Greater charges available as appropriate to the situation.
I don't have a problem with voter ID, in fact I am in support of it. What I am against is voter ID laws that are clearly timed or designed to reduce voter turnout or interfere with specific demographics of voters. Examples being student ID being acceptable and then retracting that as an acceptable form of ID a month before an election which clearly impacts the youth vote.
I'd like to see a requirement that any change to voting access occur a minimum of 12 months before an election, including the number and location of polling places.
What makes no sense to me is why voter ID can not be tied to registration to vote? Seems pretty simple. Requiring a photo on the ID card could be more difficult, but not insurmountable. Providing photo services at election points could be done, first time no photo ID but they take your photo when you vote, so it better be your face because it will be on your ID in the future. If a stolen new ID, they just got a photo of the criminal.
Quote from: Lynn;1086419I believe no mail in votes should be counted, let alone opened, until the very end.
Agree and in fact I don't think any results should be released until voting closes across the nation. Those on the west coast can be influenced by the results being reported on the east coast, resulting in different votes, or even people staying home because "what's the point".
Quote from: Toadmaster;1086440Agree and in fact I don't think any results should be released until voting closes across the nation. Those on the west coast can be influenced by the results being reported on the east coast, resulting in different votes, or even people staying home because "what's the point".
Exactly! Also, primaries need to be held as early as possible in all states. Oregon also quite inferior in this case, has them months later than other states. That means many choices have fallen away at that point or may have suspended campaigns.
Voting should be a State and/or Federal holiday. :) And we should get that lovely indelible ink that the rest of the world uses for their fingers to show you've voted! Ooh, and maybe super-soakers! :eek: :cool:
Quote from: Opaopajr;1086816And we should get that lovely indelible ink that the rest of the world uses for their fingers to show you've voted! Ooh, and maybe super-soakers! :eek: :cool:
That's an unusual use of "the rest of the world". Which I usually assume is just a backhand way of saying Europe, but it looks like only Albania and Turkey have used election ink. It's created in India, and is used in about 30 countries, most of which have serious election problems, like Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Myanmar. It's essentially a substitute for standardized identification documents.
And I didn't know anything about that, before today.
A German mother's day ad popped up on my twitter feed, and reactions are mixed.
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/a-new-german-commercial-takes-man-hating-to-the-next-level/
On the one hand, I'm not offended so much as exasperated. There's a strong bias towards men being able to take being the butt of this kind of humor, where doing it to women is seen as sexist and misogynist. Some of the twitter replies are along the lines of "It's just a joke, get over it snowflake". But I really think that a reversed sex version of this ad would cause a huge blowup.
Going from the Gilette ad, telling men to "Be better", and this ad showing men as fuckups, it's a trend that I dislike. The underlying assumption is that men are terrible, and are acceptable targets for mockery (thinly disguised as humor) or shaming. With a nice side dish of telling men they better accept it, or they're pussies.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1086829A German mother's day ad popped up on my twitter feed, and reactions are mixed.
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/a-new-german-commercial-takes-man-hating-to-the-next-level/
...that's rather... special.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1086829A German mother's day ad popped up on my twitter feed, and reactions are mixed.
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/a-new-german-commercial-takes-man-hating-to-the-next-level/
Aww. :( At first I was laughing and enjoying the commercial. It would have been brilliant as a Father's Day commercial, a bit self-effacing yet stressing "you were always there, in good times and bad, as best you could."
But it ended on a bitter and sour note, disgusted with fathers for making mistakes. :( That is rather mean spirited humor. But then perhaps I am tone-deaf to German humor. It might be funnier if I was a native of the culture and language? :confused:
Quote from: Opaopajr;1086931Aww. :( At first I was laughing and enjoying the commercial. It would have been brilliant as a Father's Day commercial, a bit self-effacing yet stressing "you were always there, in good times and bad, as best you could."
But it ended on a bitter and sour note, disgusted with fathers for making mistakes. :( That is rather mean spirited humor. But then perhaps I am tone-deaf to German humor. It might be funnier if I was a native of the culture and language? :confused:
The stereotypical German is tone deaf to humor. I'm sure funny Germans exist, but it isn't something they are known for. Even the Soviet Union was known for a having certain style of bleak humor.
Quote from: Toadmaster;1086997The stereotypical German is tone deaf to humor. I'm sure funny Germans exist, but it isn't something they are known for.
My sister had a German boyfriend with a good sense of humour.
With her around, he needed it! :D
Another "good" thing about Germans is that they are pretty much the lowest on the social justice pecking order, so you can say what you like about them without serious backlash :D
Quote from: Lurtch;1085663The Hecklers veto is an anti free speech tool. You do not support free speech.
I have never seen a conservative or libertarian do this, yet I've seen leftists do this all the time.
Someone will attempt to speak and they'll shout "Safety" or "Shame" or some nonsense over and over.
Also 95% of counter-rallies are held by leftists. Conservatives and libertarians rarely stage counter-rallies.
Finally to put this over the top, the above tactics are exactly the same that Communists and Nazis used in
the Weimar republic, and the Fascists used in Italy against moderates. :->>
It's using "free speech" as a tool to silence someone attempt to speak.
Quote from: Trond;1087062Another "good" thing about Germans is that they are pretty much the lowest on the social justice pecking order, so you can say what you like about them without serious backlash :D
Poor German lawyers. :D
Quote from: Toadmaster;1087325Poor German lawyers. :D
I know some - they ain't poor! :D
Quote from: DocJones;1087321I have never seen a conservative or libertarian do this, yet I've seen leftists do this all the time.
Someone will attempt to speak and they'll shout "Safety" or "Shame" or some nonsense over and over.
Also 95% of counter-rallies are held by leftists. Conservatives and libertarians rarely stage counter-rallies.
Finally to put this over the top, the above tactics are exactly the same that Communists and Nazis used in
the Weimar republic, and the Fascists used in Italy against moderates. :->>
It's using "free speech" as a tool to silence someone attempt to speak.
"Free speech does not mean the freedom to speak without being shouted down, beaten up, sacked and jailed!"
Quote from: S'mon;1087422"Free speech does not mean the freedom to speak without being shouted down, beaten up, sacked and jailed!"
I am very strong about free speech - but it goes in both ways. Freedom of speech does not mean that someone can say whatever they want with no social consequences. At least here in the U.S., employment is usually at-will. So if someone says something I hate, I don't have to keep paying them. Likewise, public speakers or authors who express unpopular opinions will often find that they get fewer customers. I don't think it's workable to say that people have a right to keep their jobs no matter what they say.
Speaking unpopular opinions has always been hard. Freedom of speech isn't going to make it easy. It just establishes a minimum. The government should protect speakers from violence, from jailing or government censure for their speech, and from blacklisting or other illegal conspiracy. But someone can still lose their friends, their job, or other connections over what they say.
I agree that at present in the U.S., left-wing counter-protests are more rude and more regularly go over the line compared to right-wing. On the other hand, right-wing extremists kill significantly more people than left-wing, which is a very important line as well.
Quote from: jhkim;1087483So if someone says something I hate, I don't have to keep paying them.
That's a dangerous and slippery slope.
I don't know the specific legal case offhand, but I know there was a major lawsuit against business owners who fired employees who belonged to the opposing political party. Because if that's where we're going, what's next? Please list your party affiliation on your resume? HR demanding to know who you voted for in the latest election to determine your continued employment?
I'm already sick of hearing employers checking employee's social media accounts.
What you do away from work (unless you're arrested) isn't your work's damn business. I do NOT want any SJW freakshow getting fired for going to an anti-Trump rally anymore than I want any Trump supporters to fear getting fired if HR sees their MAGA 2020 bumper sticker on their car.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean "freedom to silently think things in your head". WTF happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it?"
Of course, here's the joke. My opinion on free speech is now "Alt-Right" while I'm prancing about defending the rights of people who hate me and want me silenced ("deplatformed") if I deviate from today's approved doubleplusgoodthink.
I wonder if there may come a day when even I'm done defending the speech rights of leftists.
Quote from: jhkim;1087483I am very strong about free speech"
You really are not!
Quote from: jhkim;1087483I am very strong about free speech
You support all kinds of silencing tactics, from shouting down, deplatforming, bullying, and social ostracization and try to justify it by saying it's okay if they're extremists (even though most of those tactics are just used against minority opinions), that free speech only applies when the government is involved, or because "consequences" (which always seems to mean silencing them is okay). All of those are very anti free speech.
Quote from: jhkim;1087483I agree that at present in the U.S., left-wing counter-protests are more rude and more regularly go over the line compared to right-wing.
My point was there aren't any(hardly any(I just can't name any)) rightwing counter-protests at all.
Rightwingers do not assemble anywhere these days without the left holding counter-demonstrations.
And this seems to be a recent phenomenon, as I don't recall Tea Party rallies being counter-protested back in the 2008-2012 era.
Quote from: jhkim;1087483On the other hand, right-wing extremists kill significantly more people than left-wing, which is a very important line as well.
This has nothing to do with free speech at all.
Quote from: jhkim;1087483I am very strong about free speech - but it goes in both ways. Freedom of speech does not mean that someone can say whatever they want with no social consequences. At least here in the U.S., employment is usually at-will. So if someone says something I hate, I don't have to keep paying them. Likewise, public speakers or authors who express unpopular opinions will often find that they get fewer customers. I don't think it's workable to say that people have a right to keep their jobs no matter what they say.
I get what you are trying to say, jhkim. But I am also getting whiplash from the various topical extremes you are using as examples for your point. Like, those last three sentences is each its own topic. :eek:
Lessee... dislike "at-will" employment laws as written due to exploitative cheap labor metagaming; employee saying stuff and employer payment are wholly different realms (and political speech is the most protected form of speech in the USA); no customer is obliged to purchase products; and there is a right to due process, even in employment, especially concepts like tenure where they are workfields totally dependent upon what you say (which is why you paid for their professional opinion in the first place).
:o Whew! that was a lot to unpack! :p
You're going to get a firestorm just from people stumbling while trying to unpack your points for clarification of your support of free speech position. :) Best of luck!
Quote from: jhkimSo if someone says something I hate, I don't have to keep paying them.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1087507That's a dangerous and slippery slope.
I don't know the specific legal case offhand, but I know there was a major lawsuit against business owners who fired employees who belonged to the opposing political party. Because if that's where we're going, what's next? Please list your party affiliation on your resume? HR demanding to know who you voted for in the latest election to determine your continued employment?
I'm already sick of hearing employers checking employee's social media accounts.
This isn't a new position or something I'm particularly advocating for. For most jobs, it's the law of the land. In most jobs, an employee can be fired with no reason given - known as "at will" employment. There are legal protections currently are against being fired for race, religion, nationality, or disability (plus a few other cases, like retaliation for whistleblowing). And it's difficult to prosecute being fired for those. I was on a jury a few years ago where a former employee sued for being fired over disability and failed.
So for those who are opposed to this - what exactly is your position?
Is the idea to create a new law parallel to the Civil Rights Act, where employees would be prevented from being fired over their political orientation? I'd want to see such a law and an analysis of its ramifications before advocating. A number of my leftist friends tend to push for restricting the ability of employers to fire people to many more cases. However, I'm doubtful about the effectiveness of this. I'd prefer to help struggling workers other ways, but not through more red tape around employers.
The curious thing is that for the past century, most employers tended to be right-wing. If a leftist hippy wanted to get a job at a bank, they had to cover up and blend in to get hired and stay employed. The main protection against being arbitrarily fired were unions, which are definitely a left-wing cause. But now, it seems, there are some bigger employers showing liberal influence. I'm curious to see what people's ideas for solutions are.
Greetings!
All the fucking lazy, window-licking freaks just need to go get another job, and learn how to keep their mouth shut, and work. Just shut up and fucking dig.
Corporations need to be efficient and profitable, running like a lean, mean machine. There's no room for whiny fucking slugs. The fat needs to always be trimmed from the meat. A corporation's first priority is profits, stability, and prestige for it's shareholders and investors.
We need laws that give more power to corporations and management. Trim the fat!:D
Oh, geesus. I need to smoke a cigar after that.:D LOL.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkim;1087583So for those who are opposed to this - what exactly is your position?
Most Western countries have Unfair Dismissal protection. The USA is certainly a big outlier, just as much as with guns. Fire-at-will for speech certainly makes the no-government-jailing for speech much less impressive. The US simply outsources repression to the private sector, where in Europe it's the government's job.
I was wrong about it being a lawsuit. It's actually California law that makes it illegal to fire employees for their political views.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discriminate-based-on-political-beliefs-or-affiliation.html
LABOR CODE 1101.
No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.
Here's some legal discussion on the topic:
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/political-affiliation-discrimination.html
https://www.shouselaw.com/employment/political-retaliation.html
This should be federal law protecting everyone. Amazingly, California did something right.
Employees should only be fired for being bad employees (or the company doesn't want that position any longer). If they are spewing their political bullshit at work and that's affecting the business, then its not about their politics, its about them negatively affecting the business.
Quote from: SHARK;1087587A corporation's first priority is profits, stability, and prestige for it's shareholders and investors.
And that's why I won't work for a corporation.
Why be a meaningless cog to faceless shareholders when you can own your own business? Or at least work at a small business where you are valued member of an actual team?
Quote from: SHARK;1087587We need laws that give more power to corporations and management. Trim the fat!:D
That's a slippery slope into a wall of fire. Where's that more power being taken from? The employees? The consumers? AKA, your fellow Americans?
As for "trimming the fat", don't worry! Phenomenally more automation is on its way.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1087620And that's why I won't work for a corporation.
Why be a meaningless cog to faceless shareholders when you can own your own business? Or at least work at a small business where you are valued member of an actual team?
That's a slippery slope into a wall of fire. Where's that more power being taken from? The employees? The consumers? AKA, your fellow Americans?
As for "trimming the fat", don't worry! Phenomenally more automation is on its way.
Greetings!
LOL! Indeed, my friend. I was purposely intending the post to be stupidly extreme. A caricature.:D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: S'mon;1087611Most Western countries have Unfair Dismissal protection. The USA is certainly a big outlier, just as much as with guns. Fire-at-will for speech certainly makes the no-government-jailing for speech much less impressive. The US simply outsources repression to the private sector, where in Europe it's the government's job.
Having the government and corporations fight each other for the power to repress citizens is a losing deal either way. My ideal would be to keep the government non-repressive, and also reduce corporations' power over people in general - rather than giving the government more power in order to restrain the corporations. Concrete steps are things like breaking up monopolies and universal health care, with the end goal being that people have enough stability that they don't feel that their employer's rules have the force of law.
American law tends to be organized around encouraging lots of lawsuits, which actually favors large corporations who can afford dedicated legal teams. Adding more potential for lawsuits doesn't actually help most workers, and effectively punishes small businesses.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1087618Employees should only be fired for being bad employees (or the company doesn't want that position any longer). If they are spewing their political bullshit at work and that's affecting the business, then its not about their politics, its about them negatively affecting the business.
I agree that this is what I would prefer. However, I feel that this is best approached by the free market rather than by government regulation to encourage more lawsuits.
If people feel like slaves to their employers who can force them to do anything, the problem is their being effectively slaves. The solution shouldn't be that employers can force them to do anything in the name of more money, but are restrained if there isn't more money involved.
Quote from: SHARK;1087653I was purposely intending the post to be stupidly extreme.
Dork!
Quote from: jhkim;1087665American law tends to be organized around encouraging lots of lawsuits, which actually favors large corporations who can afford dedicated legal teams. Adding more potential for lawsuits doesn't actually help most workers, and effectively punishes small businesses.
. . .
However, I feel that this is best approached by the free market rather than by government regulation to encourage more lawsuits.
Quote from: Alexis de TocquevilleThere is hardly any political question in the United States that sooner or later does not turn into a judicial question.
We've always loved our lawsuits.
The irony here is that less government regulation
sometimes results in more corporate power, if the corporation in question controls just enough of the market (which does not have to be a monopoly), which often results in more lawsuits over tort actions. Yet more government regulation can only result in more lawsuits to try and curb behavior.
It is, truly, a very American thing.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1087618I was wrong about it being a lawsuit. It's actually California law that makes it illegal to fire employees for their political views.
I believe, but don't remember for certain, that law was based on the lawsuit you cannot remember. It was codifying something that the California legislature went, "Huh... nope," when they didn't like the result of the lawsuit.
I know that in Tennessee, it is covered under Wrongful Termination.
Quote from: Wrongful TerminationWrongful Termination. ... To be wrongfully terminated is to be fired for an illegal reason, which may involve violation of federal anti-discrimination laws or a contractual breach. For instance, an employee cannot be fired on the basis of her race, gender, ethnic background, religion, or disability.
Wrongful Termination - FindLaw
https://employment.findlaw.com/losing-a-job/wrongful-termination.html
Quote from: jhkim;1087665However, I feel that this is best approached by the free market rather than by government regulation to encourage more lawsuits.
The problem with "political bias" and the "free market" is superheated humans. That's why I support that nicely basic law.
And we clearly live in a time of political superheat. The anger against anti-Vaxxers has become over-the-top with the MSM acting like we have an ebola epidemic. Anything involving immigration explodes into cries of Nazism. And if a news story hits where there was politically motivated crime? Oy vey. This is where I don't trust the free market to handle the situation because humans are tribal.
And tribes hate non-conformers. So if your workplace is "mostly Team Red" or "mostly LGBT" or "mostly Catholic", those who don't fit into the tribe risk being fired for the politics, regardless of their quality as an employee. The free market would keep a good employee, but a tribe might fire an "outsider" in time of political strife.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1087707And we clearly live in a time of political superheat. The anger against anti-Vaxxers has become over-the-top with the MSM acting like we have an ebola epidemic. Anything involving immigration explodes into cries of Nazism. And if a news story hits where there was politically motivated crime? Oy vey. This is where I don't trust the free market to handle the situation because humans are tribal.
Man I hate Anti-Vaxxers. Now we have a friggin Measels epidemic breaking out just because they are too stupid to get their kids a free vaccine.
Quote from: jeff37923;1087686I know that in Tennessee, it is covered under Wrongful Termination.QuoteWrongful Termination. ... To be wrongfully terminated is to be fired for an illegal reason, which may involve violation of federal anti-discrimination laws or a contractual breach. For instance, an employee cannot be fired on the basis of her race, gender, ethnic background, religion, or disability.
Right, but note that there are only a narrow set of circumstances that count as wrongful termination. The vast majority of firings - even unfair ones - don't count as wrongful termination in a legal sense.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1087707This is where I don't trust the free market to handle the situation because humans are tribal.
So if your workplace is "mostly Team Red" or "mostly LGBT" or "mostly Catholic", those who don't fit into the tribe risk being fired for the politics, regardless of their quality as an employee. The free market would keep a good employee, but a tribe might fire an "outsider" in time of political strife.
On the one hand, I agree that now is a time of greater political strife than 30 years ago. But in the bigger picture, political strife is common, and tribalism is
constant.
Yeah, it sucks when someone does their job well, but is fired anyway because of office politics / tribalism. However, it happens all the time - and it used to be considered a fact of life. If one want to outlaw unfair firings due to any sort of tribalism, then that is a *huge* number of cases - and it is a huge can of worms for the government to distinguish between fair and unfair firing. I support the Civil Rights Act and its employment clause - but I do think that it is a last-ditch stopgap. If an employer really wants to fire me, and they're just letting me keep my job because of lawsuit, that's a sucky position for both of us.
I do oppose the current extreme partisanship as a cultural force, but I'm reluctant to bring in more lawsuit potential as a cure. I'm considering it, but I don't think the answer is nearly as obvious as people are implying.
Quote from: Shasarak;1087714Man I hate Anti-Vaxxers. Now we have a friggin Measels epidemic breaking out just because they are too stupid to get their kids a free vaccine.
While the Anti-Vaxxers are a bit misguided, I wouldn't put much stock in the MSM theory that the current measles outbreak is specifically because of them. The numbers don't match and there is a lot of political motivation for setting the narrative a certain way.
Quote from: moonsweeper;1087722While the Anti-Vaxxers are a bit misguided, I wouldn't put much stock in the MSM theory that the current measles outbreak is specifically because of them. The numbers don't match and there is a lot of political motivation for setting the narrative a certain way.
So what are the competing explanations? We dont have MSM here but we sure do have a Measels epidemic.
Quote from: jeff37923;1087686I know that in Tennessee, it is covered under Wrongful Termination.
Firings for political activity is covered under Tennessee's wrongful termination law?
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1087729Firings for political activity is covered under Tennessee's wrongful termination law?
It is not.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1087729Firings for political activity is covered under Tennessee's wrongful termination law?
No, but I'd bet you could make a case for being fired for belonging to a certain political party under those guidelines.
Quote from: jeff37923;1087739No, but I'd bet you could make a case for being fired for belonging to a certain political party under those guidelines.
They wouldn't fire you for belonging to a certain political party; they would fire you for the "disruption" that stems from your coworkers knowing that you belong to it and how it hurts their feelings. IOW, you are fired for being a "poor fit" for the company culture. It is unlikely to be worth the money to fight it in court.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1087748They wouldn't fire you for belonging to a certain political party; they would fire you for the "disruption" that stems from your coworkers knowing that you belong to it and how it hurts their feelings. IOW, you are fired for being a "poor fit" for the company culture. It is unlikely to be worth the money to fight it in court.
Greetings!
Dayum, HappyDaze. Isn't that the truth? And the employers have lots of ways to overload you with work, then dock you for failing consistently to meet expected goals. 1, 2, 3. You're done. Good luck fighting that in court. Employers and management have numerous tools they can employ to make your life fucked, and constantly drag you down, criticize you, fuck your reviews. In six months, they have compiled a file of your "unsatisfactory" work performance, and you are done. Not to mention the ability to transfer you to a different office/shop/store, change your work duties, require you to do *more* work, and unsurprisingly fail at task completion and performance reviews, and apply pressure to stress you with management as well as other colleagues, typically resulting in you making more mistakes, becoming emotional and angry, or depressed, or all three, resulting in more "counseling" and disciplinary action against you.
You're fucked.:D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jeff37923;1087739No, but I'd bet you could make a case for being fired for belonging to a certain political party under those guidelines.
Is there something I'm missing? Because those guidelines seem to match the Federal guidelines pretty well and being fired for belonging to a certain political party is not a protected class.
Quote from: SHARK;1087751Greetings!
Dayum, HappyDaze. Isn't that the truth? And the employers have lots of ways to overload you with work, then dock you for failing consistently to meet expected goals. 1, 2, 3. You're done. Good luck fighting that in court. Employers and management have numerous tools they can employ to make your life fucked, and constantly drag you down, criticize you, fuck your reviews. In six months, they have compiled a file of your "unsatisfactory" work performance, and you are done. Not to mention the ability to transfer you to a different office/shop/store, change your work duties, require you to do *more* work, and unsurprisingly fail at task completion and performance reviews, and apply pressure to stress you with management as well as other colleagues, typically resulting in you making more mistakes, becoming emotional and angry, or depressed, or all three, resulting in more "counseling" and disciplinary action against you.
You're fucked.:D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I've managed for healthcare systems that use a four-step disciplinary process (termination is step 4) and I have been actively encouraged by HR to have every employee up to step 2 ASAP so it's easy to take the final steps whenever it's "beneficial" to be rid of them. Step 3 is not used so lightly because it involves a performance improvement plan, and this is something that HR wants to help develop to ensure its rigged against the employee without appearing to be so rigged. Still, that involves tailoring to the offenses you want to fire for, so it's held back until you're ready to move forward. IME, almost every employee that hit step 3 reached step 4 within one year (exceptions include those involved in ongoing litigation; they were usually termed shortly after resolution of their cases because firing them while the suit is still active can hurt the company).
Quote from: HappyDaze;1087795and I have been actively encouraged by HR to have every employee up to step 2 ASAP so it's easy to take the final steps whenever it's "beneficial" to be rid of them.
Anyone who thinks any company deserves an iota of their loyalty should read that sentence repeatedly.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1087872Anyone who thinks any company deserves an iota of their loyalty should read that sentence repeatedly.
Of course, because HR's first loyalty is to the company...yet their job is specifically to be an employee's "friend" for purposes of interaction with the company. By definition that makes them the least trustworthy people you deal with, because they are the ones actually responsible for lying to you. I usually approach HR the same way I approach cops/government ...I don't know anything, didn't see anything and didn't hear anything.
...although the benefit of modern smartphones is personal copies of incident reports/pictures/etc. ;)
Quote from: Spinachcat;1087872Anyone who thinks any company deserves an iota of their loyalty should read that sentence repeatedly.
Heh, I work for a small company. We're like 32 people big. Our HR is also our CFO and, as of 2 years ago, part owner.
Everyone in the company gets along great, like family, except him. Everyone hates him because he doesn't trust anyone to not be screwing him over. I've seen him treat employees who have been here 50+ years like they were shit and trying to pull one over on him.
Last year, when I was going though chemo he actually called me up one morning when I accidentally overslept, you know... because chemo, and told me that it was becoming an issue. So I dragged myself out of bed, got to work and he cornered me in my office and railed on me. Told me he felt they were bending over backwards to accommodate* my "situation" and that he really had his doubts that I actually did anything around the place anyway. Apparently for 15 years people were just covering for me so I could sit around doing nothing.
Where was I going with this? Sorry, guess I'm still a bit bitter.
*he sent me a letter saying they were understanding of my current situation. I could use my vacation days to cover any extra time I would miss due to treatments. I ran out of days in month 2 of a 8 month treatment.
Quote from: SHARK;1087751Greetings!
Dayum, HappyDaze. Isn't that the truth? And the employers have lots of ways to overload you with work, then dock you for failing consistently to meet expected goals. 1, 2, 3. You're done. Good luck fighting that in court. Employers and management have numerous tools they can employ to make your life fucked, and constantly drag you down, criticize you, fuck your reviews. In six months, they have compiled a file of your "unsatisfactory" work performance, and you are done. Not to mention the ability to transfer you to a different office/shop/store, change your work duties, require you to do *more* work, and unsurprisingly fail at task completion and performance reviews, and apply pressure to stress you with management as well as other colleagues, typically resulting in you making more mistakes, becoming emotional and angry, or depressed, or all three, resulting in more "counseling" and disciplinary action against you.
You're fucked.:D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
You're working for the wrong company if this is happening to you.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1087945You're working for the wrong company if this is happening to you.
Every company is the wrong company for somebody. The trick is finding the one that isn't the wrong company for you, at least for a while...
Getting back to the male self hatred aspect of the thread some extent, I honestly do wonder if the tone of the gender discussion will eventually come back more to the equality of men and women or, as it sometimes appears to be become increasingly dominated by the emphasis on female superiority. Perhaps I'm just blinkered to it or being thin skinned, but I remember a great deal of support for women in many areas back in ancient dark days of the 90s, even the 80s, but not so much "And men are weak scum (S.C.U.M.?) that have so how managed to overthrow and hold the Goddesses down (Ever watched the series American Gods, that's literally as aspect of its history/mythology).
I really thought it would approach more of equilibrium but I'm starting to wonder. The current loudest feminism have gone from oppression to entitlement and practical domination. Just listen to some of the talk going around about the presidency, beyond yes and no on Trump you get people (men and women) acting like it would be a horrendous event if a male was president, even if a female was vice (suggesting such is often treated as an insult). A woman as president would be fine, IMO, but a man would be as well. It's not as if we have to become Themyscira (a liberal version I guess since men are allowed to be around..Does that mean they don't call it Paradise Island anymore*.) to be fair women or to make any moves to address the issues they fact.
*There was a line in a Wonder Woman comic when someone asked if there really were no men where she came from she responded along the lines of "Yes, we call it Paradise Island for a reason
Quote from: CarlD.;1088031A woman as president would be fine, IMO, but a man would be as well.
Women currently make up roughly 1/2 of the world population. The United States population is in line with global norms, and roughly 50% of the people in the United States are women. Women are nominally equal to men; anything men can do, women can, too.
Except, apparently, be president.
There have been 45 presidents. None of them have been a woman. Now, it's historical fact that women couldn't vote until just before Warren G Harding was elected (29th president), but I don't know if they could have registered in time for the election. So, knowing that women
can vote, and that
officially, there is no barrier to women voting, it seems that if there is an otherwise equal chance, that one of the following fifteen presidents would have been a woman.
Now, perhaps you would argue that when women gained the right to vote, they could
begin a career in politics, but since President is the highest office in the land, it would make sense that they'd have to work up to it. I think you could say that a woman born
before 1920 probably wouldn't have had the chance. There have been six presidents born after 1920 (everyone since Carter with the exception of Reagan), so if women had an equal chance, you'd expect at least
one of those to have been a woman (the odds of flipping an honest coin and getting the same result six times in a row is 1.5%).
So maybe women
don't have an equal shot at everything in our society, despite people claiming otherwise.
In the Fortune 500, women make up:
1 of every 20 CEOs
1 of every 10 top earners
1 of every 5 board seats
1 of every 4 senior leaders
1 of every 3 first/mid level managers
1 of every 2 workers
Perhaps you should ask 20 women randomly and see if 19 of them are
exactly where they want to be.
It will be funny to see what the SJW crew does if Creepy Joe wins the nomination. He'll probably get Warren or Harris as VP...if they pass the sniff test!
I suspect the divide between "actual women" and "online feminists" will continue to widen until the "online feminists" have become so bizarrely extreme, even the MSM can't pretend they speak for anyone in the viewing audience.
Millennials are rushing headlong into a nasty wall in their game of life and I expect the harsh realities will create new factions and divisions. Much akin to how Hippies became Yuppies. I cannot predict which way the Millennials will spin, but none of their utopias appear regardless who wins in 2020 and THAT social revelation will create change. Also, add to that the aging of Millennials out of college, into the workforce and into parenthood...AKA, not cool anymore for advertisers to pander to.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088074Women currently make up roughly 1/2 of the world population. The United States population is in line with global norms, and roughly 50% of the people in the United States are women. Women are nominally equal to men; anything men can do, women can, too.
So maybe women don't have an equal shot at everything in our society, despite people claiming otherwise.
I don't care about the sex (or sex-life) of the candidate...but if women make up 50% of the population, have been voting for almost 100 years and there still hasn't been a woman elected, then I would venture to say most women apparently don't really care about the sex of the candidate either.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088074In the Fortune 500, women make up:
1 of every 20 CEOs
1 of every 10 top earners
1 of every 5 board seats
1 of every 4 senior leaders
1 of every 3 first/mid level managers
1 of every 2 workers
Perhaps you should ask 20 women randomly and see if 19 of them are exactly where they want to be.
Want to place a bet on whether or not you get the same results if you ask 20 randomly selected men??
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088074In the Fortune 500, women make up:
1 of every 20 CEOs
I saw a good article about this today. It said that if you look at the figures men are just as discriminated against as women in becoming CEO of a Fortune 500 company (19 out of 150 million compared to 1 out of 150 million).
Of course that does not fit the narrative though.
Quote from: Shasarak;1088097I saw a good article about this today. It said that if you look at the figures men are just as discriminated against as women in becoming CEO of a Fortune 500 company (19 out of 150 million compared to 1 out of 150 million).
Of course that does not fit the narrative though.
Link?
Obviously most people aren't president or CEO. But 19/150M is significantly better odds than 1/150M. If I could buy two lottery tickets for the same price, and one of them was 19x more likely to pay out, I'd buy that one every time.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088102Link?
Obviously most people aren't president or CEO. But 19/150M is significantly better odds than 1/150M. If I could buy two lottery tickets for the same price, and one of them was 19x more likely to pay out, I'd buy that one every time.
Link? I just use your figure divided by the population of the USA.
In contrast the chance to win the Lotto (https://mylotto.co.nz/game-information) here in NZ is only 1 in 3.8M.
You are much more likely to get struck by Lightning in the USA (https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/flash-facts-about-lightning/) only 1 in 700,000 chance.
But to be honest, it is much better to worry about the fact that the top 1% of the top 1% are being unfairly discriminated against.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088102Link?
Obviously most people aren't president or CEO. But 19/150M is significantly better odds than 1/150M. If I could buy two lottery tickets for the same price, and one of them was 19x more likely to pay out, I'd buy that one every time.
There's a distinct reason for this, and it lies in the personality traits of women versus men. Men tend to be higher in conscientiousness and women higher in agreeableness for one. These directly affect the choice to devote their whole lives to these apex positions.
https://youtu.be/Awot-d8U9Cc
Quote from: shuddemell;1088129There's a distinct reason for this, and it lies in the personality traits of women versus men. Men tend to be higher in conscientiousness and women higher in agreeableness for one. These directly affect the choice to devote their whole lives to these apex positions.
https://youtu.be/Awot-d8U9Cc
Greetings!
Exactly, Shuddemell! All of which and more is merely evidence that men and women are *different*.:D However, Libtards don't like that, because reality and science fuck them in the ass every time they turn around, but it contradicts their fucking mantra for the past 40 years that men and women are the *same*. Still. despite trainloads of evidence and studies from biology, psychology, and so on--the Libtards don't care about truth, evidence, and reality. They keep insisting that if we just swallow enough Kool-Aid, and sob, and chant, and protest enough, then magically we can all live in a supposed utopia where all of the Happy Rainbow Barneys can dance for joy!:D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088074Women currently make up roughly 1/2 of the world population. The United States population is in line with global norms, and roughly 50% of the people in the United States are women. Women are nominally equal to men; anything men can do, women can, too.
Except, apparently, be president.
There have been 45 presidents. None of them have been a woman. Now, it's historical fact that women couldn't vote until just before Warren G Harding was elected (29th president), but I don't know if they could have registered in time for the election. So, knowing that women can vote, and that officially, there is no barrier to women voting, it seems that if there is an otherwise equal chance, that one of the following fifteen presidents would have been a woman.
Now, perhaps you would argue that when women gained the right to vote, they could begin a career in politics, but since President is the highest office in the land, it would make sense that they'd have to work up to it. I think you could say that a woman born before 1920 probably wouldn't have had the chance. There have been six presidents born after 1920 (everyone since Carter with the exception of Reagan), so if women had an equal chance, you'd expect at least one of those to have been a woman (the odds of flipping an honest coin and getting the same result six times in a row is 1.5%).
So maybe women don't have an equal shot at everything in our society, despite people claiming otherwise.
In the Fortune 500, women make up:
1 of every 20 CEOs
1 of every 10 top earners
1 of every 5 board seats
1 of every 4 senior leaders
1 of every 3 first/mid level managers
1 of every 2 workers
Perhaps you should ask 20 women randomly and see if 19 of them are exactly where they want to be.
It does not follow that because a particular portion of society constitutes a given proportion that all fields of endeavor should have exact demographic representation. A lot of this, in our free society, is left to personal choice, and it may be choices that preclude their participation at that level. The actual biological and personality differences constitute a large portion of the motivators and therefore this disparity doesn't necessarily indicate systemic oppression. Also, I suggest you try that experiment on 20 random men, and I would bet most of them aren't exactly where they'd like to be either. Discontent is not an indicator of discrimination. Finally, you might check the representation of women in plumbing, sewer work, lumberjacking, etc. Women are woefully unrepresented in these fields and yet there is no equivalent call for such representation there. Why might that be?
Quote from: Shasarak;1088097I saw a good article about this today.
Quote from: Shasarak;1088111Link? I just use your figure divided by the population of the USA.
So you
didn't see a good article about this?
Just to be pedantic, you're guilty of terrible math. I was talking about CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies, and that women represented one of every 20 CEOs. Since there are 500 companies in the Fortune 500, there are approximately 500 CEOs, and therefore roughly 25 women compared to 475 men serving as CEOs.
In contrast the chance to win the Lotto (https://mylotto.co.nz/game-information) here in NZ is only 1 in 3.8M.
Quote from: Shasarak;1088097But to be honest, it is much better to worry about the fact that the top 1% of the top 1% are being unfairly discriminated against.
IF under-representation at the
highest levels is
caused by systemic discrimination at
lower levels, it is a symptom. Curing the disease would alleviate the symptom; a treatment of just the symptom isn't a true cure.
Quote from: shuddemell;1088148A lot of this, in our free society, is left to personal choice, and it may be choices that preclude their participation at that level. The actual biological and personality differences constitute a large portion of the motivators and therefore this disparity doesn't necessarily indicate systemic oppression.
So are you claiming that
more qualified women are never passed over for promotion in favor of
less qualified men, or are you admitting that it happens and that it
isn't a problem?
Even if I accept that some disparity is the result of differences in ambition resulting from physiologically differences (which I do to a large extent), that also is not a proof that there
isn't ALSO systemic oppression. It seems to me that
at the very least, we should be trying to determine how much it
does happen and how we can prevent it.
I mean, a number of people here have claimed that they want the
most qualified person to be hired into whatever role we're discussing;
systemic oppression makes that less likely.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088164Even if I accept that some disparity is the result of differences in ambition resulting from physiologically differences (which I do to a large extent), that also is not a proof that there isn't ALSO systemic oppression. It seems to me that at the very least, we should be trying to determine how much it does happen and how we can prevent it.
And "we" are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox
There does seem to be some evidence that gender equality
increases gender imbalance in life choices.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1088194https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox
There does seem to be some evidence that gender equality increases gender imbalance in life choices.
This is a limited correlation, but I don't think that the mechanism or causation is well-understood. We can say that in Western countries with legal steps towards gender equality, that women are sometimes less involved in STEM careers and certain leadership positions. However, I would not call the *outcome* of being a CEO or science professor as purely a life choice. It is influenced by a lot of things outside of an individual's control. And even things within an individual's control are strongly affected by environment and culture.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088164So you didn't see a good article about this?
I guess I am as good at maths as you are at English. Here is your link (https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/equity-when-the-left-goes-too-far/) but I am telling you that you wont like it.
QuoteJust to be pedantic, you're guilty of terrible math. I was talking about CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies, and that women represented one of every 20 CEOs. Since there are 500 companies in the Fortune 500, there are approximately 500 CEOs, and therefore roughly 25 women compared to 475 men serving as CEOs.
In contrast the chance to win the Lotto (https://mylotto.co.nz/game-information) here in NZ is only 1 in 3.8M.
When your chance of being struck by actual lightning is so much higher then your chance of becoming a CEO I fail to see what the real difference is.
QuoteIF under-representation at the highest levels is caused by systemic discrimination at lower levels, it is a symptom. Curing the disease would alleviate the symptom; a treatment of just the symptom isn't a true cure.
Maybe you should look at real problems rather then something that only affects the minutest proportion of the population (500 out of 300 million). You have genetic diseases that occur at better rates then that.
Quote from: jhkim;1088200This is a limited correlation, but I don't think that the mechanism or causation is well-understood.
And I'd say the same about deadDMwalking's points about how we haven't had a woman president, or the number of women CEO's, etc. But there are some who will hold these kinds of data points up as proof of systemic oppression of women.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1088236And I'd say the same about deadDMwalking's points about how we haven't had a woman president, or the number of women CEO's, etc. But there are some who will hold these kinds of data points up as proof of systemic oppression of women.
I bet that England is grateful to have a woman prime minister to guide them through this difficult time.
Quote from: Shasarak;1088228I guess I am as good at maths as you are at English. Here is your link (https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/equity-when-the-left-goes-too-far/) but I am telling you that you wont like it.
I don't find it
convincing. He uses the rhetorical device of a false dichotomy multiple times. He also takes 'equality of opportunity' as a given when it is a large part of any perceived problems from liberals. But thanks for sharing.
Quote from: Shasarak;1088238I bet that England is grateful to have a woman prime minister to guide them through this difficult time.
So glad she overcame all that Systemic Oppression to lead us!
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088164So you didn't ...
So are you claiming that more qualified women are never passed over for promotion in favor of less qualified men, or are you admitting that it happens and that it isn't a problem?
Even if I accept that some disparity is the result of differences in ambition resulting from physiologically differences (which I do to a large extent), that also is not a proof that there isn't ALSO systemic oppression. It seems to me that at the very least, we should be trying to determine how much it does happen and how we can prevent it.
I mean, a number of people here have claimed that they want the most qualified person to be hired into whatever role we're discussing; systemic oppression makes that less likely.
No, I am not claiming that it never happens, I am claiming that there is NO evidence that it is a systemic (system-wide) problem and rather it is just individual cases that need to be handled individually. Your implication was that because they aren't represented demographically that it was systemic. I am saying that those are correlation without causation. Unless you have other data which you haven't presented that implication is unfounded. It should be noted that in countries that actively enforce radical egalitarianism (Sweden being one) that these differences of profession and rank within a profession are accentuated rather than mitigated.
Quote from: Shasarak;1088238I bet that England is grateful to have a woman prime minister to guide them through this difficult time.
That depends a lot on whether your a Brexiteer or a Remainer, I would imagine.
Quote from: shuddemell;1088307That depends a lot on whether your a Brexiteer or a Remainer, I would imagine.
Nope. We are all as one in our opinion of the Dear Leader!
Quote from: S'mon;1088314Nope. We are all as one in our opinion of the Dear Leader!
So no one likes her....
Quote from: shuddemell;1088306No, I am not claiming that it never happens, I am claiming that there is NO evidence that it is a systemic (system-wide) problem and rather it is just individual cases that need to be handled individually.
How many individual cases would it take before you consider it a pattern?
The Company That Sells Love to America Had a Dark Secret (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/magazine/kay-jewelry-sexual-harassment.html)
Quote from: moonsweeper;1088082I don't care about the sex (or sex-life) of the candidate...but if women make up 50% of the population, have been voting for almost 100 years and there still hasn't been a woman elected, then I would venture to say most women apparently don't really care about the sex of the candidate either.
If women (as a whole) believed in female candidates, you'd at least see more women lead in primaries (or even show up).
Even the 2020 primary has the female candidates struggling for attention. If liberal women wanted a woman president, why is Creepy Biden in the lead? Followed by Porn Writing Socialist Geezer Dude? And Bern's followed by Bouncing Skateboard Beto Bro. They all have more women behind them than Warren or Harris or the dozen other women scoring at zero in the polls.
Even when the most "liberated" women in history have the chance to promote a woman, most instead choose to support male candidates instead.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088074Perhaps you should ask 20 women randomly and see if 19 of them are exactly where they want to be.
You can ask 1000 humans and I doubt 5% would say they are
exactly where they want to be.
Even people who are doing great would like a promotion, more wealth or an easier gig.
If women want to be CEOs, that's a no brainer. Go start your own company. Boom! You're the CEO (and the chief bottle washer too!)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088335How many individual cases would it take before you consider it a pattern?
The Company That Sells Love to America Had a Dark Secret (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/magazine/kay-jewelry-sexual-harassment.html)
Well, if we talk about systemic differences there's also this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/14/study-finds-surprisingly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6507dcec7c5a
Here's an interesting quote from the same article:
"The perception that STEM fields continue to be inhospitable male bastions can become self-reinforcing by discouraging female applicants, thus contributing to continued underrepresentation"
I have found a lot of the talk about sexism and racism in America to be unhelpful and often self-fulfilling prophecies.
Quote from: Trond;1088380Here's an interesting quote from the same article:
"The perception that STEM fields continue to be inhospitable male bastions can become self-reinforcing by discouraging female applicants, thus contributing to continued underrepresentation"
I have found a lot of the talk about sexism and racism in America to be unhelpful and often self-fulfilling prophecies.
Did you read the whole article?
Quote"I think it's too soon to say, 'Okay, problem solved,'" Virginia Valian, who researches gender equity at New York's Hunter College, told Science Magazine. "We haven't solved the problem of underrepresentation of women in the sciences...and I wouldn't want people to think that this paper demonstrates that we have solved it."
Speaking to Reuters, Wendy Williams countered that criticism.
"We're not saying women do not face discrimination" in academic science, she said. "But these data speak to a real change. People seem to have internalized the value of gender diversity, and are consciously or unconsciously upgrading women candidates."
Saying 'systemic discrimination has been historically the case and things appear to finally be changing' isn't saying 'men face discrimination in hiring'.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088394Did you read the whole article?
Yes. Universities have dropped merit as the criteria for tenure and now instead use gender. How not surprising!
The very definition of SJW victory, but a loss for science education.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088394Did you read the whole article?
Saying 'systemic discrimination has been historically the case and things appear to finally be changing' isn't saying 'men face discrimination in hiring'.
Except they do. I have seen it happen. And this article is sort of, kind of, admitting it within the perimeters that's found to be acceptable (in 2015, maybe not anymore). Besides, did you see the quote I gave above? You're not helping. Your attitude seems to be that women are oppressed, by definition. Can't blame you too much though, because many academic fields now operate the same way; if they didn't find sexism in a given organization they are "doing it wrong".
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088074So maybe women don't have an equal shot at everything in our society, despite people claiming otherwise.
"Can" does gatekeep any possibility of "will."
But you
also have to want to do it, and then compete against others to even reach the potential pool from which candidates are chosen. Each 'level' is more competitive than the one below it, and if there happens to be a paucity of women at any one level, it affects the available pool from which higher levels are selected. And some industries are by nature more competitive than others.
I have met my share of real, hired women executives and women CEOs (not just ones that are spinning up a start up) and they are 100% hard core executive types, and if they have much of a domestic life, you never see it because it is not relevant. It is really tough to be that competitive, even if you are allocating almost all your waking hours to it. A lot of women simply will choose not to do it because they also want other things in life that will take up some of those hours. Those that have that expectation aren't shut out. They opted out by choice.
Quote from: Lynn;1088415"Can" does gatekeep any possibility of "will."
But you also have to want to do it, and then compete against others to even reach the potential pool from which candidates are chosen. Each 'level' is more competitive than the one below it, and if there happens to be a paucity of women at any one level, it affects the available pool from which higher levels are selected. And some industries are by nature more competitive than others.
I have met my share of real, hired women executives and women CEOs (not just ones that are spinning up a start up) and they are 100% hard core executive types, and if they have much of a domestic life, you never see it because it is not relevant. It is really tough to be that competitive, even if you are allocating almost all your waking hours to it. A lot of women simply will choose not to do it because they also want other things in life that will take up some of those hours. Those that have that expectation aren't shut out. They opted out by choice.
This is one of those weird things in recent history; we went from asking "why not equal opportunities for men and women? Perhaps some women can be bosses too!" To "wait, why aren't the percentages of people in every position exactly 50-50?"
Quote from: Lynn;1088415"
I have met my share of real, hired women executives and women CEOs (not just ones that are spinning up a start up) and they are 100% hard core executive types, and if they have much of a domestic life, you never see it because it is not relevant. It is really tough to be that competitive, even if you are allocating almost all your waking hours to it. A lot of women simply will choose not to do it because they also want other things in life that will take up some of those hours. Those that have that expectation aren't shut out. They opted out by choice.
Yep. Almost all male executives are extreme personality types who have little live outside their jobs. If they have families, they have a spouse who devotes virtually all of her time to domestic life so the CEO can devote almost all his time to being a CEO. There are only so many hours in the day.
If more woman want to reach the highest rungs of the ladder, they'll have to:
A) Abandon pretty much all other aspects of their lives.
B) If they want to have a family also (and they don't want that family raised by nannies), marry a man who will devote himself almost entirely to domestic matters.
You don't have have to look at CEOs to see the different choices ambitious men and women make. I think we could agree that women who complete medical school are highly intelligent, ambitious, and independent. The fact 60 per cent of the graduates of medical school today are women shows that women today have no problem entering difficult, competitive fields that were once male-dominated.
However, in spite of making up the great majority of graduating doctors today, women in medicine work far fewer hours over their career than men. Women are more likely to work part-time, to take years off to raise children, and to drop out of the field altogether. I'm going to give those highly intelligence, ambitious, independent women the respect to recognize that they made the choices that were best for them. That they genuine get more satisfaction from raising families than from working 60 hours a week. And that their choice not to sacrifice all other aspects of their lives to their carers is the right choice for them.
Quote from: Haffrung;1088553However, in spite of making up the great majority of graduating doctors today, women in medicine work far fewer hours over their career than men. Women are more likely to work part-time, to take years off to raise children, and to drop out of the field altogether. I'm going to give those highly intelligence, ambitious, independent women the respect to recognize that they made the choices that were best for them. That they genuine get more satisfaction from raising families than from working 60 hours a week. And that their choice not to sacrifice all other aspects of their lives to their carers is the right choice for them.
One anectodal example I've heard a few times, is a woman will plan to take some time off to have kids with plans to re-enter the workforce and continue her career, but after having the kid, decides she likes being a stay at home mom, and shifts her plans accordingly.
Quote from: Haffrung;1088553However, in spite of making up the great majority of graduating doctors today, women in medicine work far fewer hours over their career than men. Women are more likely to work part-time, to take years off to raise children, and to drop out of the field altogether. I'm going to give those highly intelligence, ambitious, independent women the respect to recognize that they made the choices that were best for them. That they genuine get more satisfaction from raising families than from working 60 hours a week. And that their choice not to sacrifice all other aspects of their lives to their carers is the right choice for them.
Sure. And this exactly illustrates one problem of looking only at 'undesirable outcomes'.
Other than actually giving birth, both women and men can be "A" and "B" types, and they can also enter into relationships where there is a stay at home partner that isn't the woman that gave birth.
Some of those 'undesirable outcomes' are actually the result of 'desired or result of a matter of personal choice'.
Quote from: Lynn;1088560Some of those 'undesirable outcomes' are actually the result of 'desired or result of a matter of personal choice'.
Which women are going to 'volunteer' to be the miners, loggers and oil riggers that we need to balance the sexist gap in those industries?
Being the only one of anything is daunting. Being the first black professional baseball player wasn't easy. Breaking down the barriers has to happen first.
Once those barriers are broken, you'll often find lots of volunteers. Like in the United States Military (https://www.womensmemorial.org/americas-military-women). There are often still different expectations, and the military clearly (https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1508127/dod-releases-annual-report-on-sexual-assault-in-military/) has a problem with sexual assault - you'd have to be brave to join the military generally, and I think that you have to be braver as a woman.
I don't think that the term 'volunteer' is appropriate for careers in male-dominated industries. They tend to be high paying jobs (relatively speaking) but require a significant amount of social disruption. You can't be an oil-rig worker and be home every weekend. Whether it is appropriate or not, society in general is more accepting of a career-driven man who doesn't engage in family life versus a woman doing the same.
But we do not need 'lots' of volunteers. We need enough to fill half of the roles.
I would suggest that the former oil-riggers should learn to change diapers and become children nursery carers. For the greater good of course.
Quote from: Shasarak;1088567Which women are going to 'volunteer' to be the miners, loggers and oil riggers that we need to balance the sexist gap in those industries?
The ones that want to, because that's all that matters. Everyone has access to the pie, and everyone competes for a slice if they want pie. Nobody is entitled to a share of the pie.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088583...
Fuck it. I'm responding to a White Knighting moron.
Quote from: Lynn;1088591The ones that want to, because that's all that matters. Everyone has access to the pie, and everyone competes for a slice if they want pie. Nobody is entitled to a share of the pie.
But that isn't all that matters. When 10% of the applicants for a job are women, but less than 50% of the jobs going to women is seen as failure / sexism you get a lot of undesirable outcomes. Hiring should be looking for the most qualified, and when it comes to checking for discrimination the employee pool should be the base looked at, not how many of X happen to be in the world at large.
Go to a written test for a fire department, I can guarantee you that women do not account for anything close to 50% of the bodies in the seats. Go to a Community college and look at the student body in a fire science program, not a whole lot of women in those classes. I've been involved in recruiting for many years, and if you see 4 or 5 women in a class of 30-40 that stands out, 1 or 2 is more common, and it is not really unusual to see none.
Come hiring time agencies fight over that very small group of women.
Quote from: Toadmaster;1088660But that isn't all that matters. When 10% of the applicants for a job are women, but less than 50% of the jobs going to women is seen as failure / sexism you get a lot of undesirable outcomes. Hiring should be looking for the most qualified, and when it comes to checking for discrimination the employee pool should be the base looked at, not how many of X happen to be in the world at large.
If you want equality
and freedom, you have to accept that given equal access, people are still going to be making choices
based on their own personal interests.
The automatic 'seen as failure / sexism' of these undesirable outcomes indicates a possible failure of our education system to produce logical and critical thinkers. Like all undesirable outcomes, it isn't a conclusion but is suggestive of a possible problem, either in the process or in the expectations, or both.
Quote from: Shasarak;1088567Which women are going to 'volunteer' to be the miners, loggers and oil riggers that we need to balance the sexist gap in those industries?
None. Modern feminism only demands equal representation in roles of power. The men can keep the powerless jobs.
The Wahmen MUST be 50% of the managers/directors/CEOs of those mining/logging/oil companies, but its perfectly fine if they're 5% of the manual labor.
As usual, feminism and white knighting is only about power and control. How not surprising.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088335How many individual cases would it take before you consider it a pattern?
The Company That Sells Love to America Had a Dark Secret (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/magazine/kay-jewelry-sexual-harassment.html)
It would take statistical evidence that it happens, rather than just a conglomeration of unsubstantiated anectdotes.
Quote from: shuddemell;1088796It would take statistical evidence that it happens, rather than just a conglomeration of unsubstantiated anectdotes.
Unsubstantiated? (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/10/25/sexual-harassment-here-some-biggest-cases/791439001/)
Statistical Analysis (https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/02610150310787559)
Satisfied?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088820Unsubstantiated? (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/10/25/sexual-harassment-here-some-biggest-cases/791439001/)
Sensationalist.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088820Statistical Analysis (https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/02610150310787559)
Cleverly hidden behind a paywall.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088583Being the only one of anything is daunting. Being the first black professional baseball player wasn't easy. Breaking down the barriers has to happen first.
Once those barriers are broken, you'll often find lots of volunteers. Like in the United States Military (https://www.womensmemorial.org/americas-military-women). There are often still different expectations, and the military clearly (https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1508127/dod-releases-annual-report-on-sexual-assault-in-military/) has a problem with sexual assault - you'd have to be brave to join the military generally, and I think that you have to be braver as a woman.
I don't think that the term 'volunteer' is appropriate for careers in male-dominated industries. They tend to be high paying jobs (relatively speaking) but require a significant amount of social disruption. You can't be an oil-rig worker and be home every weekend. Whether it is appropriate or not, society in general is more accepting of a career-driven man who doesn't engage in family life versus a woman doing the same.
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
Soldier shares video of her shocking sex assault of another soldier (https://popularmilitary.com/soldier-shares-video-of-her-shocking-sex-assault-of-another-soldier/?fbclid=IwAR0MC4p3erivutCyZo8oaKqq4R0k1lTr1dQBgZUelcXPE4qcf_nHnesqjpE#utm_source=5%20Bravo)
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
Quote from: jeff37923;1088845Sensationalist.
Are you claiming you speak for Shuddemell, now? While finding links to news articles is relatively easy, you can find the court documents for those cases; it is a matter of public record. I would imagine you would accuse ANY news article of being 'sensationalist' since they do want to make them interesting enough to warrant reading; there's always a certain amount of 'edutainment' in consuming the news.
Quote from: jeff37923;1088845Cleverly hidden behind a paywall.
You're not a Marxist, are you? Don't you want to make sure that academic journals are supported? Especially if you want to avoid 'sensationalist claims'.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088853You're not a Marxist, are you? Don't you want to make sure that academic journals are supported? Especially if you want to avoid 'sensationalist claims'.
Fuck that. The money doesn't support research, it goes to the research publishing conglomerates, which are money-sucking parasites that feast on academia.
https://www.sciencealert.com/these-five-companies-control-more-than-half-of-academic-publishing
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
Note the company whose website that you linked and are now claiming deserves money because of sarcastic muh capitalism is specifically mentioned in the paper in the second link.
You'd think I struck a nerve.....
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088853Are you claiming you speak for Shuddemell, now? While finding links to news articles is relatively easy, you can find the court documents for those cases; it is a matter of public record. I would imagine you would accuse ANY news article of being 'sensationalist' since they do want to make them interesting enough to warrant reading; there's always a certain amount of 'edutainment' in consuming the news.
Nah, Shuddemell can speak for himself quite well.
I just find it funny that you couldn't find any better source than USA Today.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088853You're not a Marxist, are you? Don't you want to make sure that academic journals are supported? Especially if you want to avoid 'sensationalist claims'.
Well, if you are trying to prove your point, it is a Major Fail to site evidence that people can't see because they would have to pay for the privilege.
Or was that your intention.....
Quote from: jeff37923;1088873Or was that your intention.....
Of course it was. You don't think that he actually read the content behind said paywall, do you?
Are there many incidents of sexual harassment in the workplace? Absolutely. No question about that.
Will the #MeToo screeching ultimately benefit women in the workplace? Absolutely not.
"MeToo Backlash Is Getting Worse" says the HuffingOnGlue Post!
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/me-too-backlash-getting-worse_n_5cddd96de4b00e035b8ce786
"Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost" says Dorkberg!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-03/a-wall-street-rule-for-the-metoo-era-avoid-women-at-all-cost
And these men are right. If you want to avoid MeToo bullshit, avoid female co-workers. "Not being a dick" isn't an defense against false claims, or even against "a misunderstanding", but tactical avoidance provides actual defense. Meet female co-workers with doors open, preferably with others present. Keep work and not-work completely separate. No mixing life stuff with work stuff. Treat female co-workers with respect, but never forget the wrong one can destroy your career, regardless of your innocence. "But I was just telling a joke I heard on TV!" will not protect you...even if she was laughing at the joke.
Yet again, more reasons to own your own business and not be a corporate cog.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1088907And these men are right. If you want to avoid MeToo bullshit, avoid female co-workers.
The scandal around Kevin Spacey shows that there don't need to be women around at all for there to be MeToo bullshit. So you're never completely safe, unless you avoid people altogether.
On the other hand, there are hundreds of other things that could go wrong - from getting hit by a truck to struck by lightning to cancer.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1088907Are there many incidents of sexual harassment in the workplace? Absolutely. No question about that.
Will the #MeToo screeching ultimately benefit women in the workplace? Absolutely not.
"MeToo Backlash Is Getting Worse" says the HuffingOnGlue Post!
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/me-too-backlash-getting-worse_n_5cddd96de4b00e035b8ce786
"Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost" says Dorkberg!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-03/a-wall-street-rule-for-the-metoo-era-avoid-women-at-all-cost
And these men are right. If you want to avoid MeToo bullshit, avoid female co-workers. "Not being a dick" isn't an defense against false claims, or even against "a misunderstanding", but tactical avoidance provides actual defense. Meet female co-workers with doors open, preferably with others present. Keep work and not-work completely separate. No mixing life stuff with work stuff. Treat female co-workers with respect, but never forget the wrong one can destroy your career, regardless of your innocence. "But I was just telling a joke I heard on TV!" will not protect you...even if she was laughing at the joke.
Yet again, more reasons to own your own business and not be a corporate cog.
Greetings!
Yeah, my friend. *EXACTLY*. That Rachel Thomas chick at the Huffington article. What a condescending slug. "You should socialize with both men and women equally" No, dumbass, men can quite easily choose to hang out with and socialize with other men, and ignore the stupid women entirely. The narcissism and entitlement with these whiny, self-righteous and smug women is astounding. That's ok, though. More and more men are developing ways and networks that strengthen men, get the job done, and fuck the women. And the men give *zero* fucks for all the whining and sobbing that the greedy, smug, entitled women screech on about. Whaa! Whaa!
I saw all of this coming when "MeToo" was getting into gear. I told my friends, you watch...men will make new ways to minimalize women, and side-line the fuck out of them at work fast. And they have. No more mentoring, no more flirting and playing fuck me grab-ass games that women fucking love at work; no more lunches and dinners, none of that. Choke on it. Strictly business, ladies!
You see though, that's not letting women flirt and fuck to get what they want, and to compete against the other women, so they're whining and crying about all those juicy extra social opportunities that come from just being a broad where they can wiggle their ass and get some action are fucking over with. Whaa. Too bad. Read it and weep, Ladies! STRICTLY BUSINESS!!! They can choke on it. You can tell they sure as fuck don't like it when men treat them with a strictly business policy.
Fucking hilarious!:D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1088820Unsubstantiated? (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/10/25/sexual-harassment-here-some-biggest-cases/791439001/)
Statistical Analysis (https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/02610150310787559)
Satisfied?
Not at all, primarily because the abstract is all I can see, and I don't trust either that website or the authors without being able to read the paper. Would you like the studies that prove that there is no basis for systemic bias?
Here's the latest one from Harvard to get you started.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bolotnyy/files/be_gendergap.pdf
Quote from: Pat;1088861Fuck that. The money doesn't support research, it goes to the research publishing conglomerates, which are money-sucking parasites that feast on academia.
https://www.sciencealert.com/these-five-companies-control-more-than-half-of-academic-publishing
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
Note the company whose website that you linked and are now claiming deserves money because of sarcastic muh capitalism is specifically mentioned in the paper in the second link.
This, so much this.
Quote from: jhkim;1088921On the other hand, there are hundreds of other things that could go wrong - from getting hit by a truck to struck by lightning to cancer.
Yes, and we tell people to avoid smoking entirely because of it, and not to dance around in thunderstorms with metal poles held aloft.
Avoiding women would never be my thing. I am far too fond of them :)
However, it might be a good idea to check out people's general online activity/demeanor; for instance Bill Webb should probably have looked up BJ Hensley's online activism before trying to pal up with her and offering her a cigarette (or maybe that's reverse victim blaming :D )
Quote from: Trond;1089041Avoiding women would never be my thing. I am far too fond of them :)
However, it might be a good idea to check out people's general online activity/demeanor; for instance Bill Webb should probably have looked up BJ Hensley's online activism before trying to pal up with her and offering her a cigarette (or maybe that's reverse victim blaming :D )
Who the hell has time or inclination to google everyone they meet and interact with?
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1089043Who the hell has time or inclination to google everyone they meet and interact with?
That, and how do you know that it is accurate and not just an online persona?
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1089043Who the hell has time or inclination to google everyone they meet and interact with?
I think his interest in her probably took it a little further than just anyone he met with, but that's just a hunch. Developing your SJW-radar (SJW-dar?) is not a bad idea. Not sure about this guy, but some people have no clue even when the red flags are all over the place :D
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1089043Who the hell has time or inclination to google everyone they meet and interact with?
I think his interest in her probably took it a little further than just anyone he met with, but that's just a hunch. Developing your SJW-radar (SJW-dar?) is not a bad idea. Not sure about this guy, but some people have no clue even when the red flags are all over the place :D
Quote from: jeff37923;1088848NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
Soldier shares video of her shocking sex assault of another soldier (https://popularmilitary.com/soldier-shares-video-of-her-shocking-sex-assault-of-another-soldier/?fbclid=IwAR0MC4p3erivutCyZo8oaKqq4R0k1lTr1dQBgZUelcXPE4qcf_nHnesqjpE#utm_source=5%20Bravo)
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
Hardly "shocking" to me, but man, would that video have been headlines all over the place if it were a man doing this to a woman.
Quote from: Trond;1089158Hardly "shocking" to me, but man, would that video have been headlines all over the place if it were a man doing this to a woman.
That's the thing, that massive double standard.
To me, this is just a normal day of military fuckery, pretty funny too.
Quote from: jeff37923;1089180To me, this is just a normal day of military fuckery, pretty funny too.
Dumb sexual humor, pranks and such are ways for people to bond. I imagine the military will fall apart if soldiers can't blow off steam in this way. They'll all be afraid to treat each other as human beings.
But on the plus side, no one will be offended. [/s]
(And the sexual double standard isn't lost on me.)
Quote from: jeff37923;1089180That's the thing, that massive double standard.
To me, this is just a normal day of military fuckery, pretty funny too.
Greetings!
SO TRUE, my friend! Every day! I can't imagine the military without constant fuckery and innuendo and such. I don't think civilians understand it at all. That's part of the reason why the military always needs to stand firm against the civilian world, and reject any kind of political correctness, nonsense, and sensitivity. Fuck that.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jeff37923;1089180That's the thing, that massive double standard.
To me, this is just a normal day of military fuckery, pretty funny too.
Yup. Here's one of the biggest rifts in the politics of most people today: some look at this video and see a "shocking" scene featuring "sexual assault". Others just chuckle and go "so what, it's nothing". It really does feel like the SJWs are the same way as the religious moralizers of the past.
Quote from: Trond;1089195Yup. Here's one of the biggest rifts in the politics of most people today: some look at this video and see a "shocking" scene featuring "sexual assault". Others just chuckle and go "so what, it's nothing". It really does feel like the SJWs are the same way as the religious moralizers of the past.
Indeed, because in both cases they are religious or quasi-religious busybodies who feel they have the moral superiority to tell others how to live.
Quote from: SHARK;1089194SO TRUE, my friend! Every day! I can't imagine the military without constant fuckery and innuendo and such. I don't think civilians understand it at all. That's part of the reason why the military always needs to stand firm against the civilian world, and reject any kind of political correctness, nonsense, and sensitivity. Fuck that.
So is the idea that the previous video is representative of sexual assault in the military? I sure as hell don't see that. I think that if a woman in the military says that she was sexually assaulted, then overwhelmingly I expect that she was actually sexually assaulted -- not that someone joked around with her or made a crude remark. The news I see about sexual assault in the military come mostly from the Pentagon's own reports - which are based on the reports of actual service members, not civilians speaking for them.
Take this recent story, for example, from that liberal rag Fox News:
QuoteMilitary sexual assaults reported by its female members rose by 44 percent between 2016 and 2018, according to a new Pentagon report released Thursday.
In 2018, 6.2 percent of female military members reported being the victim of sexual assault based on a military-wide anonymous survey. In 2016, 4.3 percent of females in the military reported being sexually assaulted.
The rate of sexual assault for women ranged from 4 percent in the Air Force to 11 percent in the Marine Corps. Nearly 1 in 4 of all women experienced an "unhealthy climate" because of sexual harassment, the report states.
Overall, the survey found that more than 20,000 service members said they had experienced some type of unwanted sexual contact -- with only approximately one-third of those filing a formal sexual assault report. The survey total is about 38 percent higher than two years ago when the last survey was carried out.
Source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/military-sexual-assaults-rise-among-females-pentagon-report
We've had a frickin United States senator and 26-year veteran testify about her sexual assault in the military. I think this points to an actual problem, not just over-sensitive politically correct civilians complaining.
Oh, rpg.net never change...
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/strange-visitor-receives-a-%F0%9F%94%B4-threadban.846941/
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/grumpygoat-receives-a-%F0%9F%94%B4-threadban.846940/
Quote from: jhkim;1089264So is the idea that the previous video is representative of sexual assault in the military? I sure as hell don't see that. I think that if a woman in the military says that she was sexually assaulted, then overwhelmingly I expect that she was actually sexually assaulted -- not that someone joked around with her or made a crude remark. The news I see about sexual assault in the military come mostly from the Pentagon's own reports - which are based on the reports of actual service members, not civilians speaking for them.
Take this recent story, for example, from that liberal rag Fox News:
Source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/military-sexual-assaults-rise-among-females-pentagon-report
We've had a frickin United States senator and 26-year veteran testify about her sexual assault in the military. I think this points to an actual problem, not just over-sensitive politically correct civilians complaining.
I'd want some more information.
Was the sexual assault done by another member of the US Military?
Did the sexual assault happen in a combat zone?
How many of these sexual assaults were committed by non-US citizens or foreign nationals against US military personnel?
How many of the sexual assaults were committed by US civilians?
Could the sexual assault be proven? How many were false statements from the victim?
Was the sexual assault committed by a superior enlisted or officer against a subordinate within their own command?
Jhkim you are, like deadDMwalking before you, sensationalizing this subject to appeal to emotion and are very short on specific details which could strengthen your logical argument.
Or disprove it.....
Quote from: jhkim;1089264So is the idea that the previous video is representative of sexual assault in the military? I sure as hell don't see that. I think that if a woman in the military says that she was sexually assaulted, then overwhelmingly I expect that she was actually sexually assaulted -- not that someone joked around with her or made a crude remark. The news I see about sexual assault in the military come mostly from the Pentagon's own reports - which are based on the reports of actual service members, not civilians speaking for them.
Yeah...you don't know a fucking thing, then.
Quote from: jeff37923;1089285I'd want some more information.
I was the SHARP coordinator for PEO Integration from 2010-2012 (formerly Future Combat Systems, now SoSE&I). I can answer some of these because I answered for our office and was able to participate in the Army-wide data collection / processing.
QuoteWas the sexual assault done by another member of the US Military?
Usually.
QuoteDid the sexual assault happen in a combat zone?
Usually not, but it did at times.
QuoteHow many of these sexual assaults were committed by non-US citizens or foreign nationals against US military personnel?
Very, very, very few, if any. None that I had ever seen in the Army-wide statistics, but I cannot say 0.
QuoteHow many of the sexual assaults were committed by US civilians?
Few, but more than 0.
QuoteCould the sexual assault be proven? How many were false statements from the victim?
In order, many times yes, CID could. As for false statements, about the nationwide average.
QuoteWas the sexual assault committed by a superior enlisted or officer against a subordinate within their own command?
By a moderate majority, yes.
Quote from: jhkim;1089264So is the idea that the previous video is representative of sexual assault in the military? I sure as hell don't see that.
If it had been the other way around and she had been in the chair and someone waved a dildo in her face you would see sexual assault. Also if she had punched him in the balls you instead you would probably not see sexual assault either?
Quote from: jhkim;1089264So is the idea that the previous video is representative of sexual assault in the military? I sure as hell don't see that. I think that if a woman in the military says that she was sexually assaulted, then overwhelmingly I expect that she was actually sexually assaulted -- not that someone joked around with her or made a crude remark. The news I see about sexual assault in the military come mostly from the Pentagon's own reports - which are based on the reports of actual service members, not civilians speaking for them.
Take this recent story, for example, from that liberal rag Fox News:
Source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/military-sexual-assaults-rise-among-females-pentagon-report
We've had a frickin United States senator and 26-year veteran testify about her sexual assault in the military. I think this points to an actual problem, not just over-sensitive politically correct civilians complaining.
QuoteNearly 1 in 4 of all women experienced an "unhealthy climate" because of sexual harassment, the report states.
Define "unhealthy climate".
Really, I'd like to see the survey the report is based on.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1089293I was the SHARP coordinator for PEO Integration from 2010-2012 (formerly Future Combat Systems, now SoSE&I). I can answer some of these because I answered for our office and was able to participate in the Army-wide data collection / processing.
Kick ass. Got a copy of the survey questions?
Quote from: jeff37923;1089285I'd want some more information.
Why?
Clearly, you're not going to make 100% of these cases disappear with exact details for every single one of them. How many does it have to be before it's a problem? If
only one in 15 female Marines report being sexually assaulted as opposed to 1 in 10, does that make it okay?
Quote from: Gagarth;1089301If it had been the other way around and she had been in the chair and someone waved a dildo in her face you would see sexual assault. Also if she had punched him in the balls you instead you would probably not see sexual assault either?
Fuck you, Gagarth. If I've ever said anything like that, cite when I did so. When you can't, don't make claims about what I would see. As for your question - I'd say that hitting someone in vulnerable spot like the groin - if it's just fighting dirty to hurt them - is assault but not necessarily sexual assault.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1089311Define "unhealthy climate".
Really, I'd like to see the survey the report is based on.
I don't have a definition - that's just the quote from the article. For reference, here's the announcement from the Department of Defense site, but I'm getting a network error trying to download the actual 2018 report.
https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1508127/dod-releases-annual-report-on-sexual-assault-in-military/
I do find this copy of the 2017 report. It does not include the survey, but it has references to the offices.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4449629-DoD-FY17-Annual-Report-on-Sexual-Assault-in-the.html
I hope that helps.
Quote from: jhkim;1089329I don't have a definition - that's just the quote from the article. For reference, here's the announcement from the Department of Defense site, but I'm getting a network error trying to download the actual 2018 report.
https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1508127/dod-releases-annual-report-on-sexual-assault-in-military/
I do find this copy of the 2017 report. It does not include the survey, but it has references to the offices.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4449629-DoD-FY17-Annual-Report-on-Sexual-Assault-in-the.html
I hope that helps.
Not really, but I appreciate the effort.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1089322Why?
Clearly, you're not going to make 100% of these cases disappear with exact details for every single one of them. How many does it have to be before it's a problem? If only one in 15 female Marines report being sexually assaulted as opposed to 1 in 10, does that make it okay?
No public discussion is ever about about "does this human behavior exist". They're all about how often this occurs, its severity, the consequences, the difficulty of mitigation, and weighing those factors to determine a reasonable response. In other words, people talk about issues to quantify the problem and compare solutions. Denying an issue exists is a way of derailing the conservation, but so is your claim that nothing else matters beyond its existence.
In that vein, thanks for quantifying a few details last page, Tanin Wulf. One of the biggest problems with surveys like this is what exactly they're surveying. Terms like "sexual assault" are notoriously ambiguous, and subject to manipulation.
Quote from: jhkim;1089264So is the idea that the previous video is representative of sexual assault in the military? I sure as hell don't see that. I think that if a woman in the military says that she was sexually assaulted, then overwhelmingly I expect that she was actually sexually assaulted -- not that someone joked around with her or made a crude remark. The news I see about sexual assault in the military come mostly from the Pentagon's own reports - which are based on the reports of actual service members, not civilians speaking for them.
Take this recent story, for example, from that liberal rag Fox News:
Source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/military-sexual-assaults-rise-among-females-pentagon-report
We've had a frickin United States senator and 26-year veteran testify about her sexual assault in the military. I think this points to an actual problem, not just over-sensitive politically correct civilians complaining.
I really hate it when Government trained killers also sexually assault people. I mean God you had one job what the hell!
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1089322Why?
I dunno, maybe so that I can make an informed opinion not based on biased cherry picked information?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1089322Clearly, you're not going to make 100% of these cases disappear with exact details for every single one of them. How many does it have to be before it's a problem? If only one in 15 female Marines report being sexually assaulted as opposed to 1 in 10, does that make it okay?
Hyperbole.
Are you sure that you were educated and not indoctrinated in whatever school you went to?
Quote from: Shasarak;1089351I really hate it when Government trained killers also sexually assault people. I mean God you had one job what the hell!
Nice to know where your bias is.
Quote from: jeff37923;1089360Nice to know where your bias is.
Bias? What do you call them?
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1089312Kick ass. Got a copy of the survey questions?
Sadly no. It was 7-9 years ago now and I no longer am a civil servant.
Quote from: Shasarak;1089364Bias? What do you call them?
I believe the appropriate term is soldier. Though I often call them patriots.
Quote from: Shasarak;1089364Bias? What do you call them?
I myself, was a sailor. A Nuclear trained Machinist Mate to be precise.
There are soldiers, marines, airmen, sailors, and coasties - but as Shuddemell so appropriately put it, they are also patriots.
Quote from: jeff37923;1089385I myself, was a sailor. A Nuclear trained Machinist Mate to be precise.
There are soldiers, marines, airmen, sailors, and coasties - but as Shuddemell so appropriately put it, they are also patriots.
So that is your bias.
But in any case you dont defeat ISIS by either asking them nicely or by showing how much of a patriot you are.
Quote from: Shasarak;1089392So that is your bias.
But in any case you dont defeat ISIS by either asking them nicely or by showing how much of a patriot you are.
You also don't defeat them by insulting the men and women on the front lines of that battle.
Quote from: shuddemell;1089393You also don't defeat them by insulting the men and women on the front lines of that battle.
You seem to think that I am insulting someone.
I would laugh to hear what SHARKs drill sergeant would say to one of his recruits that thought they were going to beat someone with rainbows and unicorn farts.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1089380Sadly no. It was 7-9 years ago now and I no longer am a civil servant.
Bummer.
I'm going to go "undecided" on this report/survey. The wording of questions can skew results. (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-1-in-5-women-have-not-been-raped-on-college-campuses)
Quote from: Shasarak;1089397You seem to think that I am insulting someone.
I would laugh to hear what SHARKs drill sergeant would say to one of his recruits that thought they were going to beat someone with rainbows and unicorn farts.
Well, in the 70's calling soldiers "killers" was an insult, particularly since the vast majority of them never kill anyone. Times may have changed, but I am careful to afford as much respect as possible to those who defend my freedom and my way of life.
Quote from: Shasarak;1089392So that is your bias.
Yes, I freely acknowledge mine.
Quote from: Shasarak;1089392But in any case you dont defeat ISIS by either asking them nicely or by showing how much of a patriot you are.
Well, you defeat ISIS by the application of high velocity lead to their membership and supporters. At least that is my opinion. What's yours?
Quote from: shuddemell;1089401Well, in the 70's calling soldiers "killers" was an insult, particularly since the vast majority of them never kill anyone. Times may have changed, but I am careful to afford as much respect as possible to those who defend my freedom and my way of life.
The most common, stupid, and often asked question of veterans by the ignorant is, "How many people have you killed?" So, I'd say that insult will never go out of style.
Quote from: jhkim;1089329Fuck you, Gagarth. If I've ever said anything like that, cite when I did so. When you can't, don't make claims about what I would see. As for your question - I'd say that hitting someone in vulnerable spot like the groin - if it's just fighting dirty to hurt them - is assault but not necessarily sexual assault.
Quote from: jhkim;1089264So is the idea that the previous video is representative of sexual assault in the military?, I sure as hell don't see that
Yeah cunt, you really want us to believe if there was a video of a male soldier punching a female soldier in the genitals or slapping her in the face with a dildo you wouldn't piss in your panties and be the first to yell SEXUAL ASSAULT!!!. You are the perfect example of a SJW double standards advocate.
Quote from: jeff37923;1089407The most common, stupid, and often asked question of veterans by the ignorant is, "How many people have you killed?" So, I'd say that insult will never go out of style.
Ask them about the people they served alongside instead. Many of them are quite happy to share their stories (whether good, bad, or ugly) and most seem to appreciate someone taking an interest in their experiences. I've only met a few that dwell on the violence (and these were often the ones getting mental health treatments) and a lot that recall the bonds they formed.
Quote from: Gagarth;1089417Yeah cunt, you really want us to believe if there was a video of a male soldier punching a female soldier in the genitals or slapping her in the face with a dildo you wouldn't piss in your panties and be the first to yell SEXUAL ASSAULT!!!. You are the perfect example of a SJW double standards advocate.
If I actually exhibit a double standard, then you can point it out and you can call me on it.
However, I don't see how this is at all the case here. You're shoving words into my mouth about what I would think about a hypothetical video, but I don't see any opinions I've expressed that match this. I dislike edginess for edginesses sake, but I'm at home with crass sexual humor and jokes. I've been to Gay Pride parades, Burning Man, raves, etc. I surprised many Nordic larpers who expected Americans to be more puritanical. Right now I'm at KublaCon on a break. I just ran a kid-friendly Harry Potter larp, but I'm about to run a game filled with sexual violence against women, Bluebeard's Bride. Here's my fan page for Macho Women With Guns, for example, which might give some impression of my taste:
http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/machowomenwithguns/
It seems to me that you're projecting opinions onto me that aren't about anything I've expressed.
How not a surprise that adding women to the military would lead to sexual assaults on those women.
Almost like cause and effect among humans is a thing.
Quote from: Trond;1089041Avoiding women would never be my thing. I am far too fond of them :)
It's not about avoiding women in life. It's about keeping yourself safe in the workplace. Very different things.
Being "far too fond" of a co-worker can shred your entire career, and today women have been weaponized.
Save the fondness (and the fondling) for not-work places.
Quote from: Shasarak;1089351I really hate it when Government trained killers also sexually assault people. I mean God you had one job what the hell!
That was funny!
And I don't see the insult here. Yes, I know the vast majority of military personnel never see combat, but I've met many marines over the years and they all joked about being "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children" and proudly discussed their lethal training. They joined the USMC to be the tip of the spear. They all signed up to blast bad guys endangering the USA. The guys I knew post-Iraq2 were mixed on talking about their combat memories, but none shied away from questions. Yes, they shot the fuck out of people. That's war.
But yeah, asking ex-military people how many people they killed is truly socially retarded, unless the questioner is a kid. When our 10th grade history class learned our teacher served in 'Nam, we were dorks and kept asking dork questions. Fortunately, the teacher was awesome beyond comprehension and told us crazy ass stories about Saigon that would have gotten him fired instantly these days.
Quote from: jeff37923;1088848NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
Soldier shares video of her shocking sex assault of another soldier (https://popularmilitary.com/soldier-shares-video-of-her-shocking-sex-assault-of-another-soldier/?fbclid=IwAR0MC4p3erivutCyZo8oaKqq4R0k1lTr1dQBgZUelcXPE4qcf_nHnesqjpE#utm_source=5%20Bravo)
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
NSFW
Pretty funny, and incredibly mild compared to some of the shit we pulled when I was enlisted.
It is pretty telling though. We'd do that sort of thing to each other, have a laugh and plot revenge. Never did it to the females because we didn't want to go up on charges.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1089493How not a surprise that adding women to the military would lead to sexual assaults on those women.
Almost like cause and effect among humans is a thing.
It's not about avoiding women in life. It's about keeping yourself safe in the workplace. Very different things.
Being "far too fond" of a co-worker can shred your entire career, and today women have been weaponized.
Save the fondness (and the fondling) for not-work places.
That was funny!
And I don't see the insult here. Yes, I know the vast majority of military personnel never see combat, but I've met many marines over the years and they all joked about being "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children" and proudly discussed their lethal training. They joined the USMC to be the tip of the spear. They all signed up to blast bad guys endangering the USA. The guys I knew post-Iraq2 were mixed on talking about their combat memories, but none shied away from questions. Yes, they shot the fuck out of people. That's war.
But yeah, asking ex-military people how many people they killed is truly socially retarded, unless the questioner is a kid. When our 10th grade history class learned our teacher served in 'Nam, we were dorks and kept asking dork questions. Fortunately, the teacher was awesome beyond comprehension and told us crazy ass stories about Saigon that would have gotten him fired instantly these days.
I remember a lot of the grunts I served with objecting to the new tat and uniform standards on the grounds that "making trained killers look warm and fuzzy was contrary to mission goals".
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1089557I remember a lot of the grunts I served with objecting to the new tat and uniform standards on the grounds that "making trained killers look warm and fuzzy was contrary to mission goals".
And that's why Kevin Siembieda needs to design the next gen uniforms!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WFkvXxbZTI
What do you guys think of this? My first thought was that maybe Keanu Reeves is a germaphobe, but maybe he's being cautious? Is this another male "excuse me for existing in the age of #Metoo" moment?
Quote from: Trond;1092120https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WFkvXxbZTI
What do you guys think of this? My first thought was that maybe Keanu Reeves is a germaphobe, but maybe he's being cautious? Is this another male "excuse me for existing in the age of #Metoo" moment?
"Hover hands" was a thing long before #metoo. I think Keanu's just the kind of guy who does that.
Quote from: Trond;1092120https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WFkvXxbZTI
What do you guys think of this? My first thought was that maybe Keanu Reeves is a germaphobe, but maybe he's being cautious? Is this another male "excuse me for existing in the age of #Metoo" moment?
I think Keanu is quietly keeping his ass out of trouble.
Keanu is a wise man.
I'm with Thornhammer. Keanu's got a black belt in CYA. Notice how he stays out of politics or the culture war unlike most of the moron celebs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMMhQMc05YM
Jesus Christ, did Lauren Chen find a goldmine (or bottomless pit) of modern male feminism here. The cringe factor is through the roof in some of these examples.
Quote from: Trond;1093444https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMMhQMc05YM
Jesus Christ, did Lauren Chen find a goldmine (or bottomless pit) of modern male feminism here. The cringe factor is through the roof in some of these examples.
I don't post here much anymore (I am not a good fit for the forum :D)
But given some current events, this video might this youtube video be of interest to some members of the forum.
[video=youtube_share;WNtr0J9aqXc]https://youtu.be/WNtr0J9aqXc[/youtube]
And...
https://time.com/5446540/girl-scouts-boy-scouts-lawsuit/
Boy Scouts include girls to be more "inclusive". Girl Scouts sue Boy Scouts for brand infringement. Womp womp.
Quote from: CarlD.;1095285But given some current events, this video might this youtube video be of interest to some members of the forum.
If both the men and women played 20 games and lost every game, their pay would be equal. If the men and women played 20 games, the women would earn 89% of the men. This is a significant improvement from the 38% it was before the current bargaining agreement.
Source (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/jul/11/does-us-womens-soccer-team-bring-more-revenue-get-/)
From the current lawsuit:
QuoteThe pay for advancement through the rounds of the World Cup was so
skewed that, in 2014, the USSF provided the MNT with performance bonuses totaling
$5,375,000 for losing in the Round of 16, while, in 2015, the USSF provided the
WNT with only $1,725,000 for winning the entire tournament. The WNT earned
more than three times less than the MNT while performing demonstrably better.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1095338Source (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/jul/11/does-us-womens-soccer-team-bring-more-revenue-get-/)
Interesting that the women get a guaranteed base salary, and the men do not. Perhaps the men should protest.
As usual, these wage discussions are far more complex than the catchphrase "Equal pay!" makes it out to be. But "Equal pay!" makes headlines, and discussions about pay barganing and merchandise income don't.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1095340Interesting that the women get a guaranteed base salary, and the men do not. Perhaps the men should protest.
As usual, these wage discussions are far more complex than the catchphrase "Equal pay!" makes it out to be. But "Equal pay!" makes headlines, and discussions about pay barganing and merchandise income don't.
Having a 'bonus' of $5k for every time you lose a game is effectively a minimum salary if you are guaranteed to play a certain number of games. But yes, perhaps the men should demand that their agreement apply to the women (or vice versa). It certainly wouldn't be possible to allege discrimination if they had the same pay agreement.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1095344It certainly wouldn't be possible to allege discrimination if they had the same pay agreement.
People have been alleging pay discrimination since it was made illegal to do so over 50 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963
So I would say, no. The allegations of pay discrimination will continue no matter what efforts are put into place to "correct" them.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1095345So I would say, no. The allegations of pay discrimination will continue no matter what efforts are put into place to "correct" them.
The women allege that they are paid substantially less despite achieving more success. This is only possible because pay is calculated differently. If they had the same agreement (whether the men used the women's agreement for the women used the men's agreement) they would be paid the same for the same performance.
In places like my job it is very easy to get a subjective performance evaluation that rewards people for being friends with the boss. But professional sports often has less subjective criteria (ie, winning the World Cup versus being eliminated in the round of 16, etc). If your contention is that the men and women are paid equally, wouldn't it make sense to let each individual choose which agreement they preferred to participate in? If they were truly equal, it wouldn't matter which one they chose. If they're not equal, there is a basis for complaint about disparate pay/treatment (both are alleged in the lawsuit).
This isn't two people doing the same job for the same company, they're players in different franchises competing in different leagues. That the sport's the same is irrelevant. And they're entertainers, it doesn't matter how hard they work or how many games they win, it's about how much money they make for the organization (which is the US Soccer Federation, a non-profit).
Found a copy of their annual minutes from 2016 (hosted on the Philly Inquirer's website), which has some financial info:
http://media.philly.com/documents/2016+U.S.+Soccer+Annual+General+Meeting+Minutes.pdf
From the national team 2017 budget, on page 58:
The women played 29 games, total revenue $17.5 million. Event expenses $6.2 million, and team expenses $6.3 million. Made over $5 million
The men played 13 events (yes, not games), total revenue $9 million. Event expenses $2.2 million, team expenses $7.8 million. Lost almost $1 million.
Now the average ticket price for the men's games was higher ($60 as opposed to $45), and so was attendance (25K vs 17K), but number of events more than makes up the difference. If that's the full story and the women still made less that year, they have terrible agents. Though that seems to be purely ticket sales, and it's hard to judge without looking at broadcast rights, merchandise sales, and so on. The overall budget does list $47 million in marketing and sponsorship (p. 62), but there doesn't seem to be break down.
If they were separate businesses, it would be easy to compare them. But they're not.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1095352If your contention is that the men and women are paid equally,
(https://assets.pando.com/uploads/2012/06/picard-facepalm-2.jpg)
This is why the conversation goes round in circles. They are not, and should not be paid equally. In order for everyone to be paid equally, they should have strictly identical details for every aspect of their jobs. As Pat points out above, this is not the case.
Quotewouldn't it make sense to let each individual choose which agreement they preferred to participate in? If they were truly equal, it wouldn't matter which one they chose. If they're not equal, there is a basis for complaint about disparate pay/treatment (both are alleged in the lawsuit).
Perhaps. What if the women, on average choose to make less money, but retain more stability, like a guaranteed salary? This is analogous to the infamous "Wage gap" where women, on average, work fewer hours and make different career choices than men, thus earn less money, and it's blamed on sexism instead of the women actually making the choices.
So no, if they were allowed to make individual choices, there would still be other factors to consider, and it would likely still result in a "Wage gap".
I think that people should get equal pay for equal work. If you do different work then you should get different pay.
If the women's team wants the men's pay, all they have to do is play in the Men's world cup. As stated, equal pay for equal work, but if you are doing something different, then you get paid differently. I think regarding sports it is an idiot stance to take to demand more money for playing children's games. Maybe the hub bub will get the proletariat to stop engaging in bread and circus, read a book or two and look for a real problem.
Quote from: Shasarak;1095369I think that people should get equal pay for equal work. If you do different work then you should get different pay.
There's other factors than raw labor though.
A famous movie star can make millions more than a less popular one with more experience.
Women models are paid much more than male models.
The interesting bit will be to see how the women's team vs. men's team does with sponsorships, aka who gets more TV commercials.
In issues of sports and entertainment, it really doesn't make sense to argue "pay gap" since payment factors are based on audience size for your work, and not really about the relative quality of your work.
Quote from: CarlD.;1095285I don't post here much anymore (I am not a good fit for the forum :D)
You fit in just fine.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1095376There's other factors than raw labor though.
A famous movie star can make millions more than a less popular one with more experience.
Women models are paid much more than male models.
The famous actor is not doing the same work as the less popular but more experienced one so why would they get the same pay?
Quote from: Shasarak;1095379The famous actor is not doing the same work as the less popular but more experienced one so why would they get the same pay?
Exactly. There's a lot of variables to consider there. Is the famous actor better looking? Do they have a more likeable personality? For example, I think Jennifer Lawrence is a mediocre actress, yet she makes lots more money than the average actress. I bet there's tons of young actresses out there who would like to make Jennifer Lawrence money.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1095393Exactly. There's a lot of variables to consider there. Is the famous actor better looking? Do they have a more likeable personality? For example, I think Jennifer Lawrence is a mediocre actress, yet she makes lots more money than the average actress. I bet there's tons of young actresses out there who would like to make Jennifer Lawrence money.
If Jennifer Lawrence is making Jennifer Lawrence money then she must be doing something better then your average young actress.
Quote from: Shasarak;1095399If Jennifer Lawrence is making Jennifer Lawrence money then she must be doing something better then your average young actress.
Like what?
Quote from: Shasarak;1095399If Jennifer Lawrence is making Jennifer Lawrence money then she must be doing something better then your average young actress.
Or spent time on the casting couch when she was younger. It is Hollywood after all. Everyone has skeletons in the closet in that city.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1095403Like what?
I don't know and on the other hand the fact you actually know her name is one thing she has over the other girls.
Hollywood isn't remotely the meritocracy it sells itself to be.
Given the increasingly prudish vibe of the American Left (as far as cis-male heterosexuality goes at least), it amuse me that the sex worker is one group of fields where women tend to have vast and sustain greater range of pay and influence, partilularly porn and less so prostitution (with its low end streetwalkers and ties to human trafficking).
Porn actresses, nude dancers though, usually make practical orders of magnitude more than their male counterparts. Ironically porn is a fairly racist field in this regard with white actresses either charging signifantly more to work with black actors or outright refusing and black focused porn generally being low quality and handled by 'specialized' companies.
I'm fairly sure you'll all have an opinion on the above in some form, positive, negative or neutral.
I will pay the site a compliment. Despite my other thoughts on its atmosphere, its is one of the few sites where gender topics can come up without it being gaurunteed to turn into an utter shitshow in the space of 4 posts due to Twitterlings, SJWs AWGs, etc.
Quote from: oggsmash;1095372If the women's team wants the men's pay, all they have to do is play in the Men's world cup. As stated, equal pay for equal work, but if you are doing something different, then you get paid differently. I think regarding sports it is an idiot stance to take to demand more money for playing children's games. Maybe the hub bub will get the proletariat to stop engaging in bread and circus, read a book or two and look for a real problem.
Utterly unisex sports (including shower and locker facilities given the issues with separate but equal)... well its shown up in enough science fiction so who knows? Heck, I'll be amazed if it we ever see a male sport reporter sue for the right to go into women team's lockers as other wise it limits his from doing his job (there was a kerfluffle about that but about women sports reporters and male teams awhile).
Or has that happened already and been laughed out of any court (possibly rightly?), quietly ignored or what?
Quote from: Shasarak;1095405I don't know and on the other hand the fact you actually know her name is one thing she has over the other girls.
Neither do I. It's complete serendipity that Actress A gets the breaks, and Actress B doesn't. You can't measure that kind of thing against experience or hours worked or certificates.
Over the last few years, the women's team has brought in more merchandising revenue than the men's team. The text of the lawsuit breaks down the nature of the complaint in very plain language. For example..
QuoteThe WNT's success on the field has translated into substantial revenue
generation and profits for the USSF. In fact, during the period relevant to this case,
the WNT earned more in profit and/or revenue than the MNT.
For example, for FY2016 (April 1, 2015-March 31, 2016), the USSF
budgeted a combined net loss for the national teams of $429,929. But thanks largely
to the success of the female players on the WNT, the USSF revised its projections
upward to include a $17.7 million profit. The net profit for the WNT outstripped net
profit for the MNT because the female players on the WNT were more successful in
competition than the male players on the MNT - while being paid substantially less.
Regarding 'guaranteed minimums'...
QuoteUnder the pay structure in effect from January 1, 2001 through December
31, 2018, MNT players received a minimum amount (currently $5,000) to play in each
game, regardless of the outcome. That minimum can increase to amounts currently
ranging from $6,250 to $17,625 per game, depending on the level of their opponent
(FIFA-ranked 1-10, FIFA-ranked 11-24, FIFA ranked above 25) and whether they win
or tie the game.
The USSF has continually rejected WNT players' requests for pay equal
to the pay afforded to MNT players. In response to their demand in 2012, the USSF
offered WNT players compensation only if they won games against FIFA-ranked top
ten teams. The USSF would not have paid them for losing games, tying games or
winning against teams ranked outside of the top ten.
Regarding 'market realities'...
QuoteThe WNTPA even proposed a revenue-sharing model that would test the
USSF's "market realities" theory. Under this model, player compensation would
increase in years in which the USSF derived more revenue from WNT activities and
player compensation would be less if revenue from those activities decreased. This
showed the players' willingness to share in the risk and reward of the economic
success of the WNT. The USSF categorically rejected this model as well.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1095465Over the last few years, the women's team has brought in more merchandising revenue than the men's team. The text of the lawsuit breaks down the nature of the complaint in very plain language. For example..
Regarding 'guaranteed minimums'...
Regarding 'market realities'...
OMGWTFBBQ!
Too many goddamn acronyms for a sport I don't follow.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1095470OMGWTFBBQ!
Too many goddamn acronyms for a sport I don't follow.
Exactly. If you are going to talk about Womens sport then you would be better off talking about Womens Rugby.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1095470OMGWTFBBQ!
Too many goddamn acronyms for a sport I don't follow.
Quote from: Shasarak;1095494Exactly. If you are going to talk about Womens sport then you would be better off talking about Womens Rugby.
Dudes! Chill!
You're harshing on deadDMwalking's white knight buzz here!
:D
If the Women's Team generates more revenue, that would justify more pay for them. I don't see that as a white knight issue. That's merit based capitalism.
It actually shouldn't be an "equal pay" issue, but teams should get paid percentage of revenue.
AKA, the "equal pay" solution is to lower the Men's Team compensation to the current level of the Women's Team. Boom! Equality! But quite understandably, the Women's Team wants more money based on their success at generating more revenue.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1095535If the Women's Team generates more revenue, that would justify more pay for them. I don't see that as a white knight issue. That's merit based capitalism.
It actually shouldn't be an "equal pay" issue, but teams should get paid percentage of revenue.
AKA, the "equal pay" solution is to lower the Men's Team compensation to the current level of the Women's Team. Boom! Equality! But quite understandably, the Women's Team wants more money based on their success at generating more revenue.
According to the video posted earlier, the women earned 22% of the revenue they generated in the World Cup. The men only earned 7% from the World Cup in Russia (this year's hasn't been played yet). So yeah, the women are earning 3x more than the men are.
The "problem" is that the women only brought in $130 million dollars revenue while the men's game last year earned $6+ billion in revenue. You can see where this goes... even though the men earn a smaller percent it looks like more.
QuoteThe "problem" is that the women only brought in $130 million dollars revenue while the men's game last year earned $6+ billion in revenue. You can see where this goes... even though the men earn a smaller percent it looks like more.
And if the Women's league was or start to earn as much in revenue as the men's granting the athlete's salaries much higher than the men's there would be a silence from many currently outraged circles the like of which you'd normally have to fly a spacecraft beyond the orbit of Pluto and stick your head out the window to experience. Due in part to human nature and the 'Privilege' women allegedly do not have (or it doesn't count).
Similar to an discussion/argument I read on this site where one poster brought up the tendency for men to get longer, harsher sentences than women across racial and even economic lines. Another poster disagreed, feeling men should get harsher sentences... because they're men and no other reason I could discern. It went on like for a bit, didn't turn into a shitshow which is might have on several other sites. I must pay the rpgsite that compliment. It is one oc the few places where gender issues can discussed with it being a head nodding party or a trainwreck automatically. This thread for example has stay pretty civil (with some flare ups, but..internet *shrug*) thought not everyone agrees and there is a larger number on one side of the issue vs the other.
Quote from: rgalex;1095544The "problem" is that the women only brought in $130 million dollars revenue while the men's game last year earned $6+ billion in revenue.
The US Men's Team brings in $6B???
Forbes says the LA Lakers and Warriors are only worth $3B, and they win games.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2018/02/07/knicks-lakers-warriors-top-list-most-valuable-nba-franchises/314781002/
Quote from: Spinachcat;1095650The US Men's Team brings in $6B???
Forbes says the LA Lakers and Warriors are only worth $3B, and they win games.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2018/02/07/knicks-lakers-warriors-top-list-most-valuable-nba-franchises/314781002/
Not the US men's team in itself, men's soccer overall. I don't know the exact numbers, but I do know that the last time I heard any stats the men's championship game drew as many viewers as the entire women's tournament combined. And naturally advertisers want a piece of that action. So even though the US men's team doesn't win that much, they still get a piece of a very, very big pie.
Then there's also the fact that the male players draw much, much bigger crowds during seasonal play here in the US (and hence earn a lot more), so they have a lot more to lose if they suffer a disastrous injury while playing for the US team. That needs to be taken into consideration as well. So while male Major League Soccer players average almost $415,000 a player in salary, the salary cap PER TEAM in the National Women's Soccer League for 2019 is only $421,500. Like the World Cup numbers, this disparity is all because of viewership differences. The highest attendance in NWSL history so far is less than 24,000, which is only slightly more than the average attendance of all MLS games in 2018; as a comparison, last year Atlanta United FC (the most popular men's soccer team) averaged over 50,000 in attendance with a high over 72,000.
Quote from: Brand55;1095673Like the World Cup numbers, this disparity is all because of viewership differences. The highest attendance in NWSL history so far is less than 24,000, which is only slightly more than the average attendance of all MLS games in 2018;
How did the 2019 Women's World Cup do for viewership and attendance?
When women are more in demand and draw in more viewership they earn more than men. Just ask people in the porn industry, a business that is not particularly feminist.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1096005How did the 2019 Women's World Cup do for viewership and attendance?
Going by this (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-48882465) article, it looks like the 2019 Women's World Cup reached 1 billion viewers and 1 million tickets sold. That's a really good thing because increasing viewership means more money for everyone involved. There's also talk about expanding to 32 teams, with an increase in prize money to go along with that.
For comparison, here's how the men's 2018 World Cup (https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/more-than-half-the-world-watched-record-breaking-2018-world-cup) did: combined 3.5 billion viewers, audience of 1.12 billion just for the final game, and a total attendance of just over 3 million.
I'd have to look but I think the women's final got better ratings here in the US than the men's, but that's because the US doesn't care nearly as much about soccer as the rest of the world and our women's team was actually playing for a championship. That gives an inflated sense to the average American about how much most people care about the two sports. Women's soccer is moderately popular and growing every year, but it's still dwarfed by the men's sport. As the women's numbers rise, though, you'll see more and more money pour in from sponsors and things will change. We just haven't reached that point yet.
Quote from: Trond;1096007When women are more in demand and draw in more viewership they earn more than men. Just ask people in the porn industry, a business that is not particularly feminist.
Yeah, that is one of life's little ironies (or jokes) like how ED medication is often sold using "living up to her fantasies and expectations instead what your body can realistically do in your circumstances (age, illness, etc) by taking these possibly risky drugs." is perfectly acceptable, at least unquestioned (by anything but those woman hating MRAs) But images of models, actresses in make up, etc, using unrealistic and potentially unhealthy lifestyle choices are signs of the Patriarchy oppression, misogyny, fat-o-phobia, etc damaging women's self esteem and self image but presenting a unrealistic standard of beauty (I thought the male ego was supposed to so fragile?).
Or in a similar vein how the men that gave negative feed back, even dropped out of the program, on the tests of the "male birth control pill" in part because it induced symptoms similar for the condition PMS (something which women know is miserable and strive to avoid...) were mocked for being "wimps" and "crybabies" by some claiming feminist cred for not taking on admitted misery (and apparently risking their permanent fertility) to lower women's chances for pregnancy when the primary and one of the mos the most successful means of birth control, condoms, already negatively impact sexual pleasure for some men. The should be ready to man up and take on what, AIU, its like ongoing PMS.
I'm being somewhat glib, even simplifying matters, but there is definitely an almost masochistic streak that makes men, as a general group, accept brush off or rationalize (seeing it as an honor or test of "manhood") negative outcome driven by what amounts to female privilege rather that face the harsh rebuke from women...and other men (as much as I dislike that term) that our current culture warring has amplified and brought more into the light at least.
Quote from: CarlD.;1096330I'm being somewhat glib, even simplifying matters, but there is definitely an almost masochistic streak that makes men, as a general group, accept brush off or rationalize (seeing it as an honor or test of "manhood") negative outcome driven by what amounts to female privilege rather that face the harsh rebuke from women...and other men (as much as I dislike that term) that our current culture warring has amplified and brought more into the light at least.
The old MRA joke goes
"Men should express their feelings more!"
Man: "Well, I'm angry that my wife took the kids in our divorce"
"NOT THOSE FEELINGS!!!"
I'm sure feminists would call it patriarchy. They have before. But I think patriarchy is a poor framework for understanding these kinds of human interactions. The overwhelming drive to silence men and elevate women means that feminsts relying on patriarchy theory only see one side of the equation.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1096351The old MRA joke goes
"Men should express their feelings more!"
Man: "Well, I'm angry that my wife took the kids in our divorce"
"NOT THOSE FEELINGS!!!"
It almost funnier in light of the origin of the term "Toxic Masculinity".
QuoteI'm sure feminists would call it patriarchy. They have before.
There are some that did and do; call both sides of the issue "Patriarchy tools of oppression" in fact. Men being angry is a sign of Toxic Masculinity, male ego and aggression and inherent latent misogyny is assuming they should 'own' their children like they do their women.
But.... that women tend to be awarded custody, greater control of access and other benefits when it comes to divorce and custody is also Patriarchy in action, just assuming that women are supposed to care for children, require male aid to do so, etc, etc.
IME, this isn't as loud though (in part because it would cost women some of their unspoken privilege...) and seemed to reach a height when it was being said that the rate of 'dead beat moms' exceeded 'Dead Beat' Dads as a percentage of the total numbers. Yes, there were more dads shirking their legal responsibilities but that was because there were more of them as men more often were the one the losing side of custody, alimony and other fights at that time.
I'm not aware of where these statistics stand now.
QuoteBut I think patriarchy is a poor framework for understanding these kinds of human interactions. The overwhelming drive to silence men and elevate women means that feminists relying on patriarchy theory only see one side of the equation.
Agreed, and its not uncommon in gender relations to see women's effective privilege ignored or assume to be the norm. Look at the presentation of "empowered strong willed female characters" in media for example. Many of them would be seen as examples of Toxic Masculinity if male, but as women there behavior is lauded.
Feminists seem to rarely object to the protections, advantages and benefits they gain from aspects of culture and society's which have been labeled sexist, most don't complain about the protections offered chivalry, gentleman-like of other codes of conduct (such as some in Islam) even referring to them as right and proper but abhor their (or seeming any) restrictions imposed on women.
You don't see many feminists demanding to give up seats on lifeboats to even disabled or elderly men, equal rates of alimony to ex hubands that make less than their ex wives or some measures be taken to equalize pay for male actors in porn or male romance authors (that don't assume a feminine author names). If a field of interest or profession is unbalanced in favor of men (there's a greater than 50% percent predominance fo men usually) there must by systemic, endemic bias and sexism responsible.
If its in favor of women, its typically assumed to be just the way it is, natural and reflective of the differing interests, drives, even abilities (especially if indicates a female superiority) If its not just large flat out ignored.
Generally and given the current cultural atmosphere, I don't think many feminists or their male ostensible allies would mind if "Shut up, women are talking." become a common place saying when it came to discussion on about any subject :D
Edit: Put another way way, women reject the idea of men defining femininity in any way, an understandable stance but then they seem to not only expect but demand the right to define masculinity in all ways AND demand that men accept whatever definition they chose for men and women even in their idealized fantasies images.
And allot of men seem to be on board with that outlook.
It's a bit like expecting a union to argue for wage hikes for management isn't it?
Feminist joke or Sexist joke?
QuoteOn their wedding night, the young bride
Approached her new husband and asked
For $20.00 for their first lovemaking
Encounter.
In his highly aroused state,
Her husband readily agreed.
This scenario was repeated each time they made
Love, for more than 40 years, with him thinking that it was a
Cute way for her to afford new clothes and other incidentals that
She needed.
Arriving home around noon one day, she was
Surprised to find her husband in a very drunken state.
During the next few minutes, he explained that
His employer was going through a process of corporate
Downsizing, and he had been let go.
It was unlikely that, at the age of 59, he'd be able to find
Another position that paid anywhere near what
He'd been earning, and therefore, they were financially ruined.
Calmly, his wife handed him a bank book which
Showed more than forty years of steady deposits and interest totaling
Nearly $1 million. Then she showed him certificates of deposits issued
By the
bank which was worth over $2 million,
And informed him that they
Were one of the largest depositors in the bank.
She explained that for more than
Three decades she had 'charged' him for sex,
These holdings had multiplied and these were the
Results of her savings and investments.
Faced with evidence of cash and investments
Worth over $3 million, her husband was so astounded he could
Barely speak, but finally he found his voice and blurted out,
'If I'd had any idea what you were doing,
I would have given you all my business!'
That's when she shot him.
Define which 'wave' it belongs if you feel it necessary.
Quote from: CarlD.;1097331Feminist joke or Sexist joke?
Define which 'wave' it belongs if you feel it necessary.
Kind of long for the payoff, but I laughed.
I judge it a mildly sexist joke, because the assumption is that the wife wouldn't have a job and that it would be surprising that she would have any investment savvy at all.
I worked with a woman who told me that, after a divorce in the early 1970s, she had trouble getting an account from a utility company without her husband's or father's signature; they did give it to her only on the strength of a note in the file from the time of her marriage "contact the wife; the husband is useless". That was during the second wave of feminism. Women quietly fixing things up for her husband (particularly in the domestic domain) is a common trope for the time period between first and second waves.
Quote from: rawma;1097367I judge it a mildly sexist joke, because the assumption is that the wife wouldn't have a job and that it would be surprising that she would have any investment savvy at all.
I worked with a woman who told me that, after a divorce in the early 1970s, she had trouble getting an account from a utility company without her husband's or father's signature; they did give it to her only on the strength of a note in the file from the time of her marriage "contact the wife; the husband is useless". That was during the second wave of feminism. Women quietly fixing things up for her husband (particularly in the domestic domain) is a common trope for the time period between first and second waves.
No memes this time, I just find it funny that you have to reach back into the past almost 50 years to find an anecdote that supports your stance on Feminism....... :D
Quote from: jeff37923;1097378No memes this time, I just find it funny that you have to reach back into the past almost 50 years to find an anecdote that supports your stance on Feminism....... :D
Well.......in fairness the joke itself has to reach back 40 years to lay the groundwork to deliver its punchline, so it's a bit raw to criticize someone for responding in kind.
Quote from: rgalex;1095544According to the video posted earlier, the women earned 22% of the revenue they generated in the World Cup. The men only earned 7% from the World Cup in Russia (this year's hasn't been played yet). So yeah, the women are earning 3x more than the men are.
The "problem" is that the women only brought in $130 million dollars revenue while the men's game last year earned $6+ billion in revenue. You can see where this goes... even though the men earn a smaller percent it looks like more.
U.S Soccer says it pays women's teams more then men's (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/29/sports/soccer/us-soccer-equal-pay.html) (New York Times)
Other sources referred th numbers as dubious (https://deadspin.com/u-s-soccer-releases-dubious-numbers-to-refute-claims-o-1836807100)
The lawsuit alleges that the pay is not equal for equal performance.
Women can outperform men and received significantly less.
In fact, women HAVE significantly outperformed men. In the last 10 years the men have made it to the Round of 16 twice (2010, 2014) and didn't qualify in 2018. In the last 10 years the women's team has won twice (2015, 2019) and placed second (2011).
There are a lot of complications - the system is designed to make an apples to apples comparison difficult - but that's exactly why we have courts to review and resolve these things.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1097652There are a lot of complications - the system is designed to make an apples to apples comparison difficult - but that's exactly why we have courts to review and resolve these things.
No shit. There are more factors to pay than just the sex of the employee. That's the whole point about how the wage gap argument is usually dumbed down to "X makes Y% of Z!", and ignores other factors.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1097652The lawsuit alleges that the pay is not equal for equal performance.
Women can outperform men and received significantly less.
In fact, women HAVE significantly outperformed men. In the last 10 years the men have made it to the Round of 16 twice (2010, 2014) and didn't qualify in 2018. In the last 10 years the women's team has won twice (2015, 2019) and placed second (2011).
There are a lot of complications - the system is designed to make an apples to apples comparison difficult - but that's exactly why we have courts to review and resolve these things.
Yes, there are many factors involved, no arguing that. What's frustrating to some us is how all those factors often end up being boiled down genitals the performers have with no other considerations discussed or allowed. It must be systemic sexism any evidence otherwise is dubious and if the courts decide otherwise its just another sign of 'Patriarchy' or something. Even discussing alternate explanations can get you dubbed a misogynist or worse.
OR...
You could set up the same base pay scale for men/women and tie in compensation bonuses based on revenue generated. If the men and women had exactly the same structure for pay but women were still paid less (because their games generate less revenue) it would still be very clear how they could earn as much (or more) than men - by simply ensuring they generate more revenue.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1097676OR...
You could set up the same base pay scale for men/women and tie in compensation bonuses based on revenue generated.
What if the player's don't like that kind of deal?
QuoteIf the men and women had exactly the same structure for pay but women were still paid less (because their games generate less revenue) it would still be very clear how they could earn as much (or more) than men - by simply ensuring they generate more revenue.
Some would say this has already largely happened (https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa.cfm), and the wage gap arugment persists, because no two individuals will have the exact same earning power, and if one is a woman and one is a man, boom, pay gap, misogyny, women are oppressed.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1097652The lawsuit alleges that the pay is not equal for equal performance.
Women can outperform men and received significantly less.
In fact, women HAVE significantly outperformed men. In the last 10 years the men have made it to the Round of 16 twice (2010, 2014) and didn't qualify in 2018. In the last 10 years the women's team has won twice (2015, 2019) and placed second (2011).
There are a lot of complications - the system is designed to make an apples to apples comparison difficult - but that's exactly why we have courts to review and resolve these things.
The only way to guarantee equal performance is to have them play in the same league, and you and I both know the women cannot compete in the men's league. It shows that they aren't really playing at the same level, in fact they lost to 15 year old boys at one point. So the idea they outperform men is laughable.
Quote from: rawma;1097367Kind of long for the payoff, but I laughed.
Bit of a walk, but an amusing one, IMO
QuoteI judge it a mildly sexist joke, because the assumption is that the wife wouldn't have a job and that it would be surprising that she would have any investment savvy at all.
When I was passed it around some friends, most of the guys found it 'feminist', its put the women as smarter and more practical, the guy shallow and a little blinded by sex and ultimately he gets lethally punished for being an adulterous, though some found it sexist for some of the reaons you mentioned.
The women were more split but leaned towards feminist. They woman was the smart one, the one good with money and in a sense saved them from poverty before the asshole man that couldn't keep it in his pants blew it but he got what he 'deserved' for his betrayal. A couple thought it was more sexist. The wife didn't have a job, could apparenetly only get money in trade for sex in their reading and was nuts to murder someone, embodying the unstable overly emotional sterotype and if she was so smart why hadn't she noticed her husband sleeping around on her?
I'm not popular enough that my circle of accquaintances counts a statistically relevant sample, but it was an interesting spread of reactions. It didn't offend to the point of pissing them off, just eye rolls from a few on both sides but it got at least a chuckle from most
QuoteI worked with a woman who told me that, after a divorce in the early 1970s, she had trouble getting an account from a utility company without her husband's or father's signature; they did give it to her only on the strength of a note in the file from the time of her marriage "contact the wife; the husband is useless". That was during the second wave of feminism. Women quietly fixing things up for her husband (particularly in the domestic domain) is a common trope for the time period between first and second waves.
So, would you say the current advertising trend where men are presented as complete morons/man-boys being protected by and/or irritating the Hell out of, smarter, more stable and balanced women more 3rd Wave oriented or something?
This review in the Atlantic actually has an interesting point: one of the most refreshing things about "Once Upon A Time in Hollywood" is the male hero (Brad Pitt). I think we have seen a couple of times now that Tarantino sometimes likes giving the Hollywood PC culture the finger.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/tarantinos-most-transgressive-film/595309/
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1097652The lawsuit alleges that the pay is not equal for equal performance.
Women can outperform men and received significantly less.
In fact, women HAVE significantly outperformed men. In the last 10 years the men have made it to the Round of 16 twice (2010, 2014) and didn't qualify in 2018. In the last 10 years the women's team has won twice (2015, 2019) and placed second (2011).
There are a lot of complications - the system is designed to make an apples to apples comparison difficult - but that's exactly why we have courts to review and resolve these things.
The US Mens team would kick the shit out of the under-15 pee-wee league, while the women's team got their asses kicked by it.
Also, the most relevant figure is the profit numbers for the FIFA World Cup, versus the women's world cup.
They can't beat teenage boys and their sport brings in 1/50th the revenue of men's soccer?
And they want equal pay? LOL.
I'm a fan of awesome bands who can't sell out small venues and never get any radio play. I guess they should get paid the same as Beyonce.
I looked it up and apparently Australia womens soccer (v. U15, under 15?) and German womens soccer (v. U17, under 17?) did the same thing with similar shutout, or near shutout, results. :o Oopsie poopsie! But it was mostly for learning exercise or lack of competition, they said. :) Seems like the result was not in doubt.
Quote from: Trond;1097912This review in the Atlantic actually has an interesting point: one of the most refreshing things about "Once Upon A Time in Hollywood" is the male hero (Brad Pitt). I think we have seen a couple of times now that Tarantino sometimes likes giving the Hollywood PC culture the finger.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/tarantinos-most-transgressive-film/595309/
This is the part that cracked me up:
QuoteSay what you will about Charles Manson; he really empowered women to pursue excellence in traditionally male-dominated fields. From armed robbery to sadistic murder at knifepoint, he put women in positions from which they had been traditionally excluded
Edit: The review was telling though, notable as it was written by a woman particularly in light of some recent "ideal man" presentations in media.
On a somewhat related note, is anyone familiar with the term: Fuckboy (https://thoughtcatalog.com/melanie-berliet/2016/04/27-hilarious-ways-to-explain-exactly-what-a-fuckboy-is/)? Is it relatively or am I hopelessly out of the loop once again? I ran across it on Tangency.
Seems like fuckboy is going through word friction and trying to be updated for a modern vernacular. It used to mean like a male boy toy, a pass around pretty boy, like a twinkie or gimp (or bardiche) of yesteryear. Nowadays some seem to be tryjng to make it about abusive "guy sluts," what used to be called gigilos (even though that is also a male prostitute), cads, lotharios, playahs, pick-up artists (there's a late 1980s RDJ Jr. movie of the same), etc.
The contrast in Tangency misinformation is funny! :) I wouldn't pay much attention to them, though. They LARP at being coherent, and internet web fora are the most time they are "outside" being with "other real people." The scattershot blather that was posted as definitions to fuckboy gives you an example of how insular and delusional these people are. Let them play in their imprisoning hug-box lest reality bursts their bubble... and we're stuck with dealing with their traumatized selves. :p
After going woke and losing $8 billion, Gillette embraces masculinity again (https://www.thepostmillennial.com/after-losing-8-billion-gillette-embraces-masculinity-again/)
Quote from: Shasarak;1100964After going woke and losing $8 billion, Gillette embraces masculinity again (https://www.thepostmillennial.com/after-losing-8-billion-gillette-embraces-masculinity-again/)
[video=youtube;hw3CE04LGiA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw3CE04LGiA[/youtube]
Woke companies don't give two shits about equality or feminism or whatever, when money is on the line.
Quote from: Shasarak;1100964After going woke and losing $8 billion, Gillette embraces masculinity again (https://www.thepostmillennial.com/after-losing-8-billion-gillette-embraces-masculinity-again/)
So the article claims that portraying positive male role models means rejecting toxic masculinity while simultaneously pointing out that they are at odds.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1100985So the article claims that portraying positive male role models means rejecting toxic masculinity while simultaneously pointing out that they are at odds.
"These three functions--often expressed as the three "Ps": Parenthood, protection and productivity--happen to be the three necessary components for a healthy male presence in society"
"First, it doesn't talk about men in general. It focuses on one guy that most men can relate to, and admire. And what a guy Ben is! On a scale of one to ten, Ben's male positivity hits eleven! He is a manly man, built up through training to perfection of the male form. He is also a sensitive man. And he is the kind of man who channels his manliness into areas that are the furthest thing from "toxic": fathering, service to his community and physical protection of the helpless. He has a right to feel fear, but what he worries about most is not being there for his family."
Quote from: Shasarak;1100988"First, it doesn't talk about men in general. It focuses on one guy that most men can relate to, and admire. And what a guy Ben is! On a scale of one to ten, Ben's male positivity hits eleven! He is a manly man, built up through training to perfection of the male form. He is also a sensitive man. And he is the kind of man who channels his manliness into areas that are the furthest thing from "toxic": fathering, service to his community and physical protection of the helpless. He has a right to feel fear, but what he worries about most is not being there for his family."
Hey Ben is every thing that the woke crowd despises.
Fuck Gillette.
They can make 400 "Ben" commercials and play them 24/7/365 and the same answer stands.
Fuck Gillette and its pandering bullshit.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1100985So the article claims that portraying positive male role models means rejecting toxic masculinity while simultaneously pointing out that they are at odds.
The concept of "toxic masculinity" has warped the idea of masculinity. I suppose that's the point.
All masculinity is "toxic" to SJWs and 3rd wave feminists.
And water continues to be wet.
.....
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3777[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3780[/ATTACH]
Gilette's problem is that they made a product that is so good it does not need to be replaced often.
For people who change their razor ever week, they can join 'dollar shave'. For people like me who use a Gilette ProGlide, I bought a pack of blades from Costco that is likely going to last me 10 years. I change the razors when they get dull, but even shaving a minimum of once per day (often twice) they don't get dull. The aloe strip wears off pretty quick, but that was never a selling point for me.
I don't like planned obsolescence, but I understand why customers do it. Gillette made a mistake by overestimating how ingrained the habit of replacing blades was.
Quote from: Shasarak;1100964After going woke and losing $8 billion, Gillette embraces masculinity again (https://www.thepostmillennial.com/after-losing-8-billion-gillette-embraces-masculinity-again/)
Nope.
Ship has sailed, Gillette.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1101128Gilette's problem is that they made a product that is so good it does not need to be replaced often.
For people who change their razor ever week, they can join 'dollar shave'. For people like me who use a Gilette ProGlide, I bought a pack of blades from Costco that is likely going to last me 10 years. I change the razors when they get dull, but even shaving a minimum of once per day (often twice) they don't get dull. The aloe strip wears off pretty quick, but that was never a selling point for me.
I don't like planned obsolescence, but I understand why customers do it. Gillette made a mistake by overestimating how ingrained the habit of replacing blades was.
That's nonsense. Their product is nowhere close to being that good. Perhaps you just can't grow a proper beard. I use new blades daily, but I buy double edge razors that cost 17 cents a piece and outperform Gillette in both comfort and durability. I can use them longer, but why? My blades are completely recyclable, cheap, and easy to come by. Why suffer a sub optimal shave, when I can beat Gillette's products by hundreds of dollars a year?
I'm lazy, have fine scandanavian hair, and don't mind stubble, so I just buzz my chin with an electric razor once or twice a week.
Somehow I feel this is relevant here (or maybe a topic for a new thread):
the game developer Alec Holowka commited suicide after #Metoo accusations from .....Zoe Quinn (of Gamergate fame).
https://heavy.com/games/2019/08/alec-holowka-dead/
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1101128Gilette's problem is that they made a product that is so good it does not need to be replaced often.
Yea, that's their problem...
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1097676OR...
You could set up the same base pay scale for men/women and tie in compensation bonuses based on revenue generated. If the men and women had exactly the same structure for pay but women were still paid less (because their games generate less revenue) it would still be very clear how they could earn as much (or more) than men - by simply ensuring they generate more revenue.
I agree, the pay structure should be the same. However...
The Men's World Cup championship game brought in more money then the entire Women's World Cup. Based on that staggering difference in money, the women would probably be making less than they do now, if things were proportionately fair.
The Christina Hoff Sommers talks about Feminists on Bill Maher
[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p4AJQBT52rk[/youtube]
Quote from: Shasarak;1103425The Christina Hoff Sommers talks about Feminists on Bill Maher
[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p4AJQBT52rk[/youtube]
Interesting, I can see why she's not popular these days. I don't think this would go over well on Tangency.
EDIT: Along these lines, if you have Netflicks you might want to check put Bill Burr's comedy special Paper Tiger. "I guess if women ran the world there'd be no war or something... apparently there'd be no due process either..." He's really un PC but in very funny way.
Quote from: CarlD.;1103448Interesting, I can see why she's not popular these days. I don't think this would go over well on Tangency.
EDIT: Along these lines, if you have Netflicks you might want to check put Bill Burr's comedy special Paper Tiger. "I guess if women ran the world there'd be no war or something... apparently there'd be no due process either..." He's really un PC but in very funny way.
I started to watch Burr earlier tonight, but about halfway through he had me so bored I stopped it. His material was fine, but I don't like him/his delivery enough to sit through an hour of it.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1103579I started to watch Burr earlier tonight, but about halfway through he had me so bored I stopped it. His material was fine, but I don't like him/his delivery enough to sit through an hour of it.
Comedy is a personal thing. I find him hilarious. His stage persona seemed to give a voice to some anger that men tend to feel. I mean he could be a poster here. LOL
But if it didn't float your boat, it didn't. No harm done. I like Chris Rock and Dave Chapelle (Burr reminds me of them some degree) so I get Kat Williams recommended quite a bit and don't like his stage persona much, though allot of his material is along the same lines as Rock and Chapelle.
On a different note, I was watching and interview with Liz Plank, author of "For the Love of Men", a book on fostering what she called 'Mindful Masculinity' (she deliberately avoids using the term toxic masculinity,in her book considering it insulting to men, for one thing).At one point she was talking about parental leave and how many men don't take advantage of it feeling they'll look weak or not driven enough but really should when one of the women in that talk comes with "Yeah, we should start stigmatizing men that don't take their parental leave!" No, talk to, not encourage them to do it but stigmatize and attack them... You could see Ms Plank inwardly sigh at that too that kind of knee jerk "Punish men for being men" so called feminist reaction too, but it was illustrative of some of the mind set around these issue.
Quote from: CarlD.;1103607On a different note, I was watching and interview with Lix Plank, author of "For the Love of Men", a book on fostering what she called 'Mindful Masculinity' (she deliberately avoids using the term toxic masculinity,in her book considering it insulting to men, for one thing).At one point she was talking about parental leave and how many men don't take advantage of it feeling they'll look weak or not driven enough but really should when one of the women in that talk comes with "Yeah, we should start stigmatizing men that don't take their parental leave!" No, talk to, not encourage them to do it but stigmatize and attack them... You could see Ms Plank inwardly sigh at that too that kind of knee jerk "Punish men for being men" so called feminist reaction too, but it was illustrative of some of the mind set around these issue.
"Mindful Masculinity" sounds a bit too touchy feely for me, but I appreciate her approach you're describing.
If there's room in the world for non-traditional men, surely there's room for traditionally masculine men. In the drive to "feminize" men, we do a disservice in areas of domestic violence and mental health programs telling them they're "toxic".
The continuing rate of suicide among men is, IMO, a failure of "progressive" approaches to mental health that fail to address men's psychological makeup.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1103627"Mindful Masculinity" sounds a bit too touchy feely for me, but I appreciate her approach you're describing.
If there's room in the world for non-traditional men, surely there's room for traditionally masculine men. In the drive to "feminize" men, we do a disservice in areas of domestic violence and mental health programs telling them they're "toxic".
The continuing rate of suicide among men is, IMO, a failure of "progressive" approaches to mental health that fail to address men's psychological makeup.
Suicide is a major health crisis, and it deserves a lot of attention and resources.
That said, the current high rate of suicide is NOT the highest it has been (https://time.com/5609124/us-suicide-rate-increase/). Suicide rates fell sharply after World War II; they were significantly higher for the first third of the 20th century. You'll of course note that this high rate of suicide could not have been caused by any perceived attack on 'male gender roles'.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1103627"Mindful Masculinity" sounds a bit too touchy feely for me, but I appreciate her approach you're describing.
'
Its annoying but expected that the push for male parental leave mostly seem to gaining traction as its being framed as a push for women's equality (not forcing the role of child care on them), getting "lazy men" (the one with the higher rates for essentially working themselves to death in one fashion or another) to put in more work in the home and other benefits to women so people, particularly zealous, bordering misandryist proponents of modern feminism, will care.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1103651That said, the current high rate of suicide is NOT the highest it has been (https://time.com/5609124/us-suicide-rate-increase/). Suicide rates fell sharply after World War II; they were significantly higher for the first third of the 20th century. You'll of course note that this high rate of suicide could not have been caused by any perceived attack on 'male gender roles'.
I intentionally didn't say it was the the highest it has ever been.
As the chart you linked shows, suicide rates were at a low in 2000, when they started to trend back up.
The problem that I have with the term "toxic masculinity" is that it's completely unspecific. The term "toxic" here isn't clarifying, it's just another way of saying "bad".
I think it's fine to think that some traditionally masculine behaviors are wrong. I think that hitting your kids to teach them a lesson is wrong -- it either teaches kids to knuckle under to bullying, or it teaches them the opposite of what was intended. Conversely, some forms of vicious gossip are a feminine tradition - those are also wrong.
Even to the people who use the term, I don't think that "toxic masculinity" has a very clear definition other than "parts of masculine tradition I don't like". For example, here's a popular image I've seen purporting to show non-toxic masculinity.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3834[/ATTACH]
Nothing wrong with the sentiment in itself, but it's not very clarifying about what is toxic and non-toxic, given a very wide range of masculine characters and traits.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1103627"Mindful Masculinity" sounds a bit too touchy feely for me, but I appreciate her approach you're describing.
If there's room in the world for non-traditional men, surely there's room for traditionally masculine men. In the drive to "feminize" men, we do a disservice in areas of domestic violence and mental health programs telling them they're "toxic".
The continuing rate of suicide among men is, IMO, a failure of "progressive" approaches to mental health that fail to address men's psychological makeup.
From what I see, the suicide rate is particularly high in conservative parts of the U.S. -- so I'm doubtful about conservative approaches being any better. It's also rising higher among whites and Native Americans than other races/ethnicities.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/24/mapping-the-rising-tide-of-suicide-deaths-across-the-united-states/?noredirect=on
Quote from: CarlD.;1103607Comedy is a personal thing. I find him hilarious. His stage persona seemed to give a voice to some anger that men tend to feel. I mean he could be a poster here. LOL
But if it didn't float your boat, it didn't. No harm done. I like Chris Rock and Dave Chapelle (Burr reminds me of them some degree) so I Kat Williams recommended quite a bit and don't like his stage persona much, though his material is along the same lines as Rock and Chapelle.
On a different note, I was watching and interview with Liz Plank, author of "For the Love of Men", a book on fostering what she called 'Mindful Masculinity' (she deliberately avoids using the term toxic masculinity,in her book considering it insulting to men, for one thing).At one point she was talking about parental leave and how many men don't take advantage of it feeling they'll look weak or not driven enough but really should when one of the women in that talk comes with "Yeah, we should start stigmatizing men that don't take their parental leave!" No, talk to, not encourage them to do it but stigmatize and attack them... You could see Ms Plank inwardly sigh at that too that kind of knee jerk "Punish men for being men" so called feminist reaction too, but it was illustrative of some of the mind set around these issue.
With Burr, I grew tired of the continuous angry man bit. In contrast, Chappelle had angry mixed with other affects and it appealed to me more. In this, it's not unlike my preference for meals with multiple distinct items on the plate rather than one mixed dish with a single flavor.
Quote from: jhkim;1103716I think it's fine to think that some traditionally masculine behaviors are wrong. I think that hitting your kids to teach them a lesson is wrong -- it either teaches kids to knuckle under to bullying, or it teaches them the opposite of what was intended.
So hitting your kids is something only men do. Why am I not surprised you would think that.
As I understand its origin, the term Toxic Masculinity stems from the MRA movement where it came into being as a descrition/complaint against the depiction of men in allot of media: as innately violwnt, brutal and emotionally limited to dealing with each other, the world and issues with rage, aggression and violence (or even as weak when they demonstrated other mindsets and emotions). Funny how much meanings can shift over time.
Just to throw out a hypothetical, what do you think the response would be if people started using "toxic femininity" to describe the negative aspects of femininity?
Quote from: CarlD.;1103788As I understand its origin, the term Toxic Masculinity stems from the MRA movement where it came into being as a descrition/complaint against the depiction of men in allot of media: as innately violwnt, brutal and emotionally limited to dealing with each other, the world and issues with rage, aggression and violence (or even as weak when they demonstrated other mindsets and emotions). Funny how much meanings can shift over time.
Specifically, the mythopoetic Men's Movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythopoetic_men%27s_movement), which was a bit different than the current MRAs.
Quote from: Pat;1103795Just to throw out a hypothetical, what do you think the response would be if people started using "toxic femininity" to describe the negative aspects of femininity?
For quite a few "Misogyny!" their standard responce to pretty much any criticism of women (or even A woman.) I've heard it muttered darkly even when the possibility of Female Privilege or Misandry has been discussed or when there is a female antagonist in a work of fiction that doesn't have an origin or motivation that is considered acceptably sympathetic.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1103803Specifically, the mythopoetic Men's Movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythopoetic_men%27s_movement), which was a bit different than the current MRAs.
Interestimg, perhaps my sources conflated them or were conisdering one certain aspects of the pretty vilified Men's Right Activist groups. They do share some aspects including, IME, being mocked for being weak, whiny and (somewhat ironically) unmanly by many, including some feminists.
Quote from: Pat;1103795Just to throw out a hypothetical, what do you think the response would be if people started using "toxic femininity" to describe the negative aspects of femininity?
[video=youtube;p46AXCtue9c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p46AXCtue9c[/youtube]
Speaking of male acceptance of shame, etc...
Why are so called gendered insults only an issue when they refer to women?
Calling someone a pussy or a cunt is wrong but its perfectly all right to call them a dick or a tool, don't shame small breasts but feel free to insult penis size and equate it to virility, courage or overall masculinity.
I mean I have seen people say "Don't call him a pussy, that's sexist, you dick!" LOL
Quote from: CarlD.;1105298Speaking of male acceptance of shame, etc...
Why are so called gendered insults only an issue when they refer to women?
Calling someone a pussy or a cunt is wrong but its perfectly all right to call them a dick or a tool, don't shame small breasts but feel free to insult penis size and equate it to virility, courage or overall masculinity.
I mean I have seen people say "Don't call him a pussy, that's sexist, you dick!" LOL
It's assumed that men are stoic* and more capable of taking on responsibility than women. From "teaching men not to rape" to the double standard of gendered insults. There's some tiny pushback from progressives who can see the hypocracy, but it never amounts to much.
*And then shamed for their stoicism.
Quote from: Pat;1103795Just to throw out a hypothetical, what do you think the response would be if people started using "toxic femininity" to describe the negative aspects of femininity?
Shhh! Real Men don't talk about "toxic femininity," we just make allowances for it and get on with our lives. :eek: :D
I'm like already beyond even toxic androgyny, you... beings! :rolleyes: Waiting for y'all to reach to my level. :D
%wasoveritbeforeyouevenknewaboutit (yeah, we don't use number signs anymore either, slo-pokes.)
:cool: /sips cold-pressed bone broth thru a brass straw
Quote from: Opaopajr;1106233:cool: /sips cold-pressed bone broth thru a brass straw
OK I'm ready to admit, reading this slightly raised my blood pressure...
Quote from: Antiquation!;1106268OK I'm ready to admit, reading this slightly raised my blood pressure...
And admission is the first step to recovery. :D Hurray!
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1105305It's assumed that men are stoic* and more capable of taking on responsibility than women. From "teaching men not to rape" to the double standard of gendered insults. There's some tiny pushback from progressives who can see the hypocrisy, but it never amounts to much.
And, IME, the push-back usually comes structure in a fashion, often pained, that lends some aspect of to insulting, belittling, inconveniencing women. The double standard of men getting custody less often, is presented an assumption that unfairly casts women as automatically required to take care of children, for example.
It all plays into the same basic aspect of human nature (it seems to a basic aspect at least), we're programmed on some level, perhaps socially, maybe genetically, to give care more about issues that harm or threaten women and about their security than men who are largely expected to suck it up and deal, most folks really don't care about issues that only or largely affect men, at least not very much.
Women have programs, movements, studies and organizations, men by and large have alcohol and silence. Hyperbolic for humor but true in a general sense, similar organizations for men often end up mocked or even vilified, some times by feminists or women that see it as a zero sum game. Shelters for battered men, rare as they are, were and are protested by women, IME and mocked by men who see them a pandering to weak men.
IMO, this attitude, this nature which is generally not acknowledged or not even seen as wrong is a reason we're never going to have 'equal' culture. Men and women are just viewed differently and in ways that favor women (not that it doesn't favor men in some way but that tends to raise concerns which it seem unfair). I don't see that changing in the foreseeable expect, not more than marginally.
Hell, I've seen posters on this site expressing an utter lack of concern over men getting harsher sentences for the same crimes as women or that that is right for unstated reasons. I've never seen much concern of the lack of men that read, particularly fiction and that participate in certain hobby, but less that 50% women in an past time, career, art form and its cause for alarm, studies ad articles on institutionalized sexism.
Quote*And then shamed for their stoicism.
True enough. Toxic Masculinity has that aspect, men 'refusing to admit/deal with their problems because they're too stubborn, egotistical and stupid' then men that do often get laughed at and stigmatized, sometimes as weak, even effeminate in a damned if you do, damned if you don't closed loop, enforced by men and women, for the most part.
Acceptable masculinity seems largely determined by women while the demand the right to define femininity as their sole prerogative which must be accepted. Its another double standard though men generally play into it.
A situation some years back that I felt illustrate some of the can't win nature of these was when a girl in high school was tearing her way though the boy wrestlers at competition. Objectively, she should have been, she'd been taught martial arts, mainly form like jujitsu and Akido since she could walk as a family tradition and was competing against 1 or 2 year high school wrestler in rules that favored her strength. She didn't have to hold/pin them for much time, just put them in holds and pin them for a moment, not to belittle her accomplishment and training. She worked hard for them but things were in her favor in some way.
The boys she beat were getting hardily mocked for losing to 'just a girl', by their peers, commentators and the general public though, humiliated and emasculated to a degree and on top of that their anger and shame at the additional ridicule was taken as sexism and their 'male ego' and innate sexism. While the girl was treated as some kind of superhero for defeating people, that if they have the same genitals are her, most would have expected her to beat.
Quote from: Pat;1103795Just to throw out a hypothetical, what do you think the response would be if people started using "toxic femininity" to describe the negative aspects of femininity?
There's a book on the subject: The Anti-Mary Exposed: Rescuing the Culture from Toxic Femininity (https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Mary-Exposed-Rescuing-Culture-Femininity/dp/1505110262/). I found it valuable reading, but since it's coming from an orthodox Catholic perspective, it would be Banned on TBP and may not receive the warmest welcome elsewhere in the hobby. :)
Quote from: CarlD.;1107009Women have programs, movements, studies and organizations, men by and large have alcohol and silence.
I'd rather have the booze! :D
But it's a good point. Oddly, the more Western women are given, the more they proclaim how victimized they are as "proven" by these programs, movements, studies and organizations. I love showing my mom YouTube videos of screeching young feminists and laughing hysterically while mom tries to choke down her bile.
Quote from: CarlD.;1107009I've never seen much concern of the lack of men that read, particularly fiction and that participate in certain hobby, but less that 50% women in an past time, career, art form and its cause for alarm, studies ad articles on institutionalized sexism.
I've discussed this before, but when I taught and later as an educational consultant, I was a broken record about the importance of young children reading and developing a love of reading. It won't surprise anyone that parents of daughters took this more seriously than parents of boys, and even families with boys and girls would shrug when I pointed out how their son wasn't reading like their daughter, and it was reflected in his academic results.
As for "institutionalized sexism", I'm waiting for the woman's movement demanding more blue collar jobs for women. Totally looking forward to #WomenRoofersNow
Quote from: CarlD.;1107009Acceptable masculinity seems largely determined by women while the demand the right to define femininity as their sole prerogative which must be accepted. Its another double standard though men generally play into it.
Men play into it because too many men are weak idiots who think agreeing to modern feminist nonsense will get them more pussy. Unfortunately, this tactic sometimes does work, so it reinforces the behavior. Also, there's this weird trend of husbands allowing themselves to become broken weaklings. I suspect that's traced back to absent fathers.
However, men do determine some aspects of femininity as certain female traits result in more dates and better relationships. However, those traits are often in conflict with the feminist politics and media messaging, so it becomes this strange "fish don't need bicycles, so why am I alone?" mentality among women upset about their lack of relationships.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1107035There's a book on the subject: The Anti-Mary Exposed: Rescuing the Culture from Toxic Femininity (https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Mary-Exposed-Rescuing-Culture-Femininity/dp/1505110262/). I found it valuable reading, but since it's coming from an orthodox Catholic perspective, it would be Banned on TBP and may not receive the warmest welcome elsewhere in the hobby. :)
Speaking of books, I rather like "Sex Matters: How Modern Feminism Lost Touch with Science, Love, and Common Sense" by Mona Charen. Great title too :D
Quote from: Spinachcat;1107353"fish don't need bicycles, so why am I alone?"
..
:D
Quote from: Spinachcat;1107353Also, there's this weird trend of husbands allowing themselves to become broken weaklings. I suspect that's traced back to absent fathers.
The hen-pecked husband of a shrew is a trope as old as literature.
Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrew_(stock_character)) has an article on the term 'shrew' that's interesting.
I imagine he's not popular here, but I'm curious to see how this plays out considering he/she said nature of it. "It was consensual"/"I was too drunk to consent!". It really could be a likely some intoxicated guy misreading a situation himself or a somewhat intoxicated woman regretting who she woke up beside or any number of other combination.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2019-10-09/matt-lauer-defends-against-rape-allegation
FYI, its International Day of the Girl (https://www.un.org/en/events/girlchild/), during a Year of the Woman... Does that mean every human born with a uterus and vagina or feels strongly that should have been gets a party or special powers or something today. :D
Sometimes, you have to chuckle at things, you can't take this world too seriously.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1107420The hen-pecked husband of a shrew is a trope as old as literature.
Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrew_(stock_character)) has an article on the term 'shrew' that's interesting.
Wikipedia also traces computers back centuries, but I'd say what we think of as computers are a bit more common today. I'm joking a bit here, but I do think Spinachcat is correct in that this has been a growing trend. In fact, I think that men wanting to literally turn into women (even if they already have kids etc) is a trend. Some reviewers even noted something "daring" about Once Upon a Time in Hollywood: "Brad Pit is masculine AND a hero of a major movie in this day and age". I was thinking, really, have we gone that far down the rabbit hole now?
My daughter and I have been having "movie night" - she's 18, and wants to watch "good movies". So we've been delving into all kinds of stuff, re-watching movies she's not seen in years: Alien, Predator, John Wick, 300, Inception, Terminator, etc. But somehow we got onto "The Great Escape", and then "Patton", and "Kelly's Heroes" - which took us on a turn with Clint Eastwood (all the Leone films, and some of his modern stuff).
She said to me out of the blue "They don't make guys like this anymore in Hollywood. And there's not a lot of guys my age that are remotely like this."
She saw right to the core of it. Leading men in entertainment, with a few rare exceptions, simply aren't very masculine anymore. And it's largely by design. I mean look at people's reactions to SILLY action movies that are over the top - like the new Rambo movie. Silly movie. Guys love it simply because it's over the top. Like John Wick - I mean it's Keanu for christ's sake, not the most macho guy, but fuck it we'll take it, he's a cool guy.
But granted... she is my daughter. She's been trained to have standards. So take it with a grain of salt. And kids today do not even remotely have it as bad as kids generation past. It's a different paradigm and we've lost something important in the shuffle.
Quote from: tenbones;1108954My daughter and I have been having "movie night" - she's 18, and wants to watch "good movies". So we've been delving into all kinds of stuff, re-watching movies she's not seen in years: Alien, Predator, John Wick, 300, Inception, Terminator, etc. But somehow we got onto "The Great Escape", and then "Patton", and "Kelly's Heroes" - which took us on a turn with Clint Eastwood (all the Leone films, and some of his modern stuff).
She said to me out of the blue "They don't make guys like this anymore in Hollywood. And there's not a lot of guys my age that are remotely like this."
She saw right to the core of it. Leading men in entertainment, with a few rare exceptions, simply aren't very masculine anymore. And it's largely by design. I mean look at people's reactions to SILLY action movies that are over the top - like the new Rambo movie. Silly movie. Guys love it simply because it's over the top. Like John Wick - I mean it's Keanu for christ's sake, not the most macho guy, but fuck it we'll take it, he's a cool guy.
But granted... she is my daughter. She's been trained to have standards. So take it with a grain of salt. And kids today do not even remotely have it as bad as kids generation past. It's a different paradigm and we've lost something important in the shuffle.
So I've watched all of the John Wick movies in the past year, and I watched
Unforgiven last week, including a Clint Eastwood retrospective that was included as part of the Bonus Material. I think that Keanu Reeves as John Wick and Clint Eastwood as 'the man with no name' are virtually the same character. I mean, in
Unforgiven his character is a remorseless killer who changed his ways because of the influence of his now departed wife. Minus a dog and a cabal of ninja assasins, they're practically the same movie.
When are you watching "Steel Magnolias" and "A League of Their Own" with your daughter, tenbones! :) Bring some sugar free frogurt and facial tissues!
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108961So I've watched all of the John Wick movies in the past year, and I watched Unforgiven last week, including a Clint Eastwood retrospective that was included as part of the Bonus Material. I think that Keanu Reeves as John Wick and Clint Eastwood as 'the man with no name' are virtually the same character. I mean, in Unforgiven his character is a remorseless killer who changed his ways because of the influence of his now departed wife. Minus a dog and a cabal of ninja assasins, they're practically the same movie.
Yeah. You wouldn't *have* John Wick without Eastwood. The DNA is clearly there.
But let's be clear - Keanu has come to this from a much different place. Clint is more pure and the product of his era as much as Keanu is of his. In Unforgiven, William Munny is summed up in the bar-scene, in one glorious expository monologue. And at no point does anyone believe otherwise in that performance, which ultimately is all the story requires.
"Less is more" rules the day in these things. But also in that the capacity for the actor to portray the essence of what's called for requires an element - in these movies - that is hard to come by without age, experience, and honesty.
I've said this in other threads - I *HIGHLY* recommend the documentary "Milius (https://youtu.be/oLuPXfsCkWg)" - it's like P.T. Barnum on testosterone, and a *fantastic* and significant slice of Hollywood's history and in my opinion, decline... and very pertinent to this thread. It's currently free on Amazon.
AND - Watch the credits!
Quote from: Opaopajr;1108982When are you watching "Steel Magnolias" and "A League of Their Own" with your daughter, tenbones! :) Bring some sugar free frogurt and facial tissues!
How dare you.
My daughter cried during Interstellar. Afterwards, she flicked out her butterfly knives and removed both of those ducts as compensation to me.
Quote from: tenbones;1108987How dare you.
My daughter cried during Interstellar. Afterwards, she flicked out her butterfly knives and removed both of those ducts as compensation to me.
This reminds me that
Face/Off is the absolute best movie in the history of movies, and you should bump that to the top of your list if you haven't already.
Quote from: tenbones;1108987My daughter cried during Interstellar. Afterwards, she flicked out her butterfly knives and removed both of those ducts as compensation to me.
I think we all cried at the shitty story.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108992This reminds me that Face/Off is the absolute best movie in the history of movies, and you should bump that to the top of your list if you haven't already.
Really? While I enjoyed it, it doesn't even scratch the top 100.
Quote from: tenbones;1108986I've said this in other threads - I *HIGHLY* recommend the documentary "Milius (https://youtu.be/oLuPXfsCkWg)" - it's like P.T. Barnum on testosterone, and a *fantastic* and significant slice of Hollywood's history and in my opinion, decline... and very pertinent to this thread. It's currently free on Amazon.
Wow! I just watched the trailer. I knew that the character of Walter Sobchak in
The Big Lebowski was based on John Milius, but didn't expect such a close physical resemblance.
On the subject of the last few posts, years ago I read an article in Salon (way back when Salon was worth reading) by a woman who was lamenting some of the (then) recent trends in movies. One of her big points was that something changed when all of the "tough guys" in action movies and thrillers started to look like they spent 12 hours a day at the gym. She specifically compared them unfavorably to Eastwood (among others).
Yeah it's very odd to me at my age to see actors "trying" to be masculine... and quite obviously *trying*.
Sobchak is clearly a caricature of Milius's own caricature of himself. It's fucking hilarious tho. Watching the documentary and realizing his contributions to nearly everything great from Hollywood to me - from Eastwoods career to Star Wars, to Conan, to Rome, to Jaws, and everything from b-list 70's shitastic movies to some of the truly great moments in storytelling in Hollywood... come from him?
It's crazy.
Aaaand GQ, a magazine I believed was for gentlemen (call me naive) has made an issue where they discuss "masculinity" and come up with virtually nothing but negativity and male-hating from people like Hannah Gadsby and some random gay people. Given that Playboy has done similar things this really seems to be a trend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb1VqL-tflQ
There was a recent post by Sarah Andersen, a person who makes online comics.
https://twitter.com/SarahCAndersen/status/1184476908349722624
It did spark a decent amount of backlash. Many people pointing out the hypocracy of shaming masculinity, while berating men for not sharing their feelings.
Now, I'm fine with "non-traditional" masculinity. Some guy is more effeminate? Sure. It's a big world. But why, I wonder, is the sentiment not reciprocal? Is there no room for traditionally masculine men? Why aren't men allowed to just fucking be who they are, without society shaming them for it? Isn't that the point of all this "progressivism"?
The idea of toxic masculinity has, IMO, done far more harm than good, and I wonder if that was the point.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1111461There was a recent post by Sarah Andersen, a person who makes online comics.
https://twitter.com/SarahCAndersen/status/1184476908349722624
It did spark a decent amount of backlash. Many people pointing out the hypocracy of shaming masculinity, while berating men for not sharing their feelings.
Now, I'm fine with "non-traditional" masculinity. Some guy is more effeminate? Sure. It's a big world. But why, I wonder, is the sentiment not reciprocal? Is there no room for traditionally masculine men? Why aren't men allowed to just fucking be who they are, without society shaming them for it? Isn't that the point of all this "progressivism"?
The idea of toxic masculinity has, IMO, done far more harm than good, and I wonder if that was the point.
Since it came from the grievance studies it was intended to damage not help. As anything out of that shithole.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1111461The idea of toxic masculinity has, IMO, done far more harm than good, and I wonder if that was the point.
From what I understand of the term's origin its one that's was co-opted and mutated into a negative, particularly online and among some modern feminists.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1111461Is there no room for traditionally masculine men?
We make our own room. That's why they hate us.
Manspreading for the win! :)
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1111461Why aren't men allowed to just fucking be who they are, without society shaming them for it?
We are allowed! We just have to tell "society" to FUCK OFF.
The more men who "opt out" of whatever "society" is selling, the easier for more men to blow off this bullshit.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1111461Isn't that the point of all this "progressivism"?
No. The point of "progressivism" is unquestioned authoritarian control over every aspect of society.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1111512Manspreading for the win! :)
You
WILL stop manspreading.
https://www.dezeen.com/2019/07/24/laila-laurel-manspreading-chair-furniture-design/ (https://www.dezeen.com/2019/07/24/laila-laurel-manspreading-chair-furniture-design/)
Quote from: Antiquation!;1111560You WILL stop manspreading.
https://www.dezeen.com/2019/07/24/laila-laurel-manspreading-chair-furniture-design/ (https://www.dezeen.com/2019/07/24/laila-laurel-manspreading-chair-furniture-design/)
It's almost like men don't have testicles or something...
Quote from: Brad;1111563It's almost like men don't have testicles or something...
:confused: B-but... the patriarchy... fucking misogynist!
Quote from: Brad;1111563It's almost like men don't have testicles or something...
That is one of their goals.
Douglas Murray explains why Male Self-Hatred is the new Cuttle-Fish sex strategy in this brave Woke world
[video=youtube_share;1eW_b23HDsI]https://youtu.be/1eW_b23HDsI[/youtube]
Id say you can't destroy maculinity. You can make it a good or bad thing though.
What these femminists don't realize is that by trying to suppress it all they are making IS that sort of toxic masculinity. Lone Shooters are on the rise despite heightened medical care and gun laws.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114436Id say you can't destroy maculinity. You can make it a good or bad thing though.
What these femminists don't realize is that by trying to suppress it all they are making IS that sort of toxic masculinity. Lone Shooters are on the rise despite heightened medical care and gun laws.
Greetings!
Yep, and as our society continues to become more feminized, more focused on disenfranchising men, and glorifying single mothers and households ruled by women, the more savage and bloody the reprisal by angry, bitter men will be. The more alienated men feel, the more powerless, despised, and shit on by women, the courts, the schools, the media--the more they are going to seethe with anger and rage, and plot their savage revenge. MORE, MORE, and MORE, folks. We are not going to see *less* of this enraged violence and slaughter, but MORE. Every week, every fucking day. Keep thinking feminism is good, keep spoiling and coddling children, keep raising them in fucked up, single parent households led by fucking mommy and her train of loser fucking boyfriends. The rage will continue to flow endlessly.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK;1114495Yep, and as our society continues to become more feminized, more focused on disenfranchising men, and glorifying single mothers and households ruled by women, the more savage and bloody the reprisal by angry, bitter men will be.
The amusing thing I noticed is that it doesn't even to make women happier. Another thing that's been on constant decline every year is female happiness index.
Despite it all Women are left the unhappier ones (This isn't a "What aboot the wahmen" thing just an amusing observation). I think that being spoiled like this just makes them lose touch with reality and when that happens its only a matter of time until you become unstable.
Well, can't you get all that toxicity out with dark chocolate and a good cry? :confused: :D
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114498The amusing thing I noticed is that it doesn't even to make women happier. Another thing that's been on constant decline every year is female happiness index.
Despite it all Women are left the unhappier ones (This isn't a "What aboot the wahmen" thing just an amusing observation). I think that being spoiled like this just makes them lose touch with reality and when that happens its only a matter of time until you become unstable.
Greetings!
Excellent, Shrieking Banshee! Yeah, it is an interesting phenomena that as the Feminist leadership pushes their agenda through American society, and which becomes embraced in varying degrees by women everywhere--as well as many, many men--after all, Feminism is *taught* in schools, and pushed on our youth at every level of school, regardless of what the parents think about it. Then, coupled with the growing preponderance of single-parent mommy-led households, which of course also embrace feminist dogma, the infection only grows and gets worse, year by year. As you mentioned, it has been noted that there are huge elements of women through society that are nonetheless increasingly *UNHAPPY*--despite the supreme advancements of feminism and more wealth, power, and authority granted to women than ever before.
I think there are hard-wired desires, expectations, and natures which bristle and are in conflict with the prevailing feminist dogma, which contributes to the deep spiritual, emotional, and psychological dissonance experienced by many women. Despite this reality, and also because of many stupid and weak men, the rot continues, with no one willing to step forth and stop the infection, and begin a program of healing. I suppose the spiritual crisis much reach some kind of tipping point, where there then becomes enough men and women alike that begin to *about face* and sternly reject feminism and other elements of prevailing pop culture, medicine, sociology, what have you--all of the various contributors that glom onto pushing corrosive and ultimately poisonous social and political ideologies, between the sexes, families, and dealing with children. It is a huge and very complex set of issues, though I think a careful and thoughtful analysis, sharp people can see where the tentacles reach, and how pervasive all this bullshit has become.
Which leads also to your next point--yes, as children, especially boys--are alienated and spoiled, and deprived of proper masculine identity--and girls are likewise provided with a liscentious and perverted sense of femininity--that huge depth of emotional trauma actually feeds into the spread of all manner of strange insanities and nuerotic beaviour. The fallout being seen in more young people being more fragile, more sensitive, more insane and unstable, and incapable of being "normal"--because they are not healthy to begin with, and never have been. They simply do not have the emotional and spiritual *Toolbox* because they have been raised in a spoiled environment, which conversely has also been an environment where they have been *deprived* of the true essentials, and the things they truly need to be healthy, functioning adults. Thus, the mass shootings. The hate. The callous, ruthless and utterly nihilistic views towards their peers, the whole society--and even themselves.
It's like our whole society has become a factory for breeding unstable, angry psychopaths, eager to slaughter and feast upon the society at large, even if doing so leads to their own destruction and damnation. Honestly, it's quite disturbing, and alarming. There are corrections, to be sure, though secular society still believes they have the answers. I think more and more people though--hopefully--are catching onto that the secular, professional society really doesn't have the answers--or at best, they only grasp part of the solution. Part of being able to heal is recognizing what the true problem is--and secular society--as noted with feminism, rampant divorce, drugs, the disenfranchisement of men--is in fact the fountain and locus of the problem to begin with. That truth isn't something that secular society at large wants to face up to--which is why we continue to fail.
What a ride we are in for, my friend!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK;1114495Yep, and as our society continues to become more feminized, more focused on disenfranchising men, and glorifying single mothers and households ruled by women, the more savage and bloody the reprisal by angry, bitter men will be. The more alienated men feel, the more powerless, despised, and shit on by women, the courts, the schools, the media--the more they are going to seethe with anger and rage, and plot their savage revenge. MORE, MORE, and MORE, folks. We are not going to see *less* of this enraged violence and slaughter, but MORE. Every week, every fucking day. Keep thinking feminism is good, keep spoiling and coddling children, keep raising them in fucked up, single parent households led by fucking mommy and her train of loser fucking boyfriends. The rage will continue to flow endlessly.
This is the most entitled piece of crap I've ever seen here. "Give me what I want or I WILL HURT YOU!". That's toxic masculinity in a nutshell.
Nobody owes you their companionship or obedience. When you destroy your relationships by acting in destructive ways, the system is getting better at identifying it.
Interestingly, I was able to find a statistics (specifically for Illinois) indicating that 51% of custody decisions,
both parents agree that the mother should have full custody and 91% of custody decisions do not require the court to make a decision at all.
Maybe men are being too sensitive and feeling 'shit on' when they get exactly what everyone else gets in the same proportion. Too much acting like entitled snow-flakes for my taste.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1114556This is the most entitled piece of crap I've ever seen here. "Give me what I want or I WILL HURT YOU!". That's toxic masculinity in a nutshell.
.
“Toxic masculinity”. Don't know if you noticed, but recently a bunch of feminists went on Australian ABC and advocated violence against men.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1114556This is the most entitled piece of crap I've ever seen here. "Give me what I want or I WILL HURT YOU!". That's toxic masculinity in a nutshell.
"Give me what I want or I will hurt you" is universal. What about it makes it exclusively male?
"Give me what I want or I will get somebody else to hurt you". Is that better? Or not male?
That's not to say I don't believe masculinity can't be toxic. I just want a better understanding of what it actually specifically entails.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114563"Give me what I want or I will hurt you" is universal. What about it makes it exclusively male?
In this case, it is because Shark was saying MEN who are defined as being male are the ones saying it.
Give me what I want or I will hurt you is not how civilized people handle things. Perhaps more importantly, the things that men WANT can't be coerced. You might convince someone to provide you physical pleasure with the threat of violence, but you won't have love or respect. Just fear.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1114570In this case, it is because Shark was saying MEN who are defined as being male are the ones saying it.
Give me what I want or I will hurt you is not how civilized people handle things. Perhaps more importantly, the things that men WANT can't be coerced. You might convince someone to provide you physical pleasure with the threat of violence, but you won't have love or respect. Just fear.
What degree of obligation is anyone under to 'like' you or your views, or beliefs? How many of those degrees of obligation you're demanding equate to the creation of resentment or anger or fear you're indicating you're against? And do they *really* matter based on your post of 'civility' above? I think it's it's completely rhetorical and falls apart under any realistic scrutiny. It's a call for tyranny.
If people that *don't* like you - or whatever it is you paint upon yourself that you call "identity" - want to gather together to be free from such demands of your social obligations, why would you imply they owe you such obligations in the first place, if indeed your true concerns are "fear" or "hatred" or whatever secondary concern is really being offered as a justification? If men want to be neanderthals and "bros" or whatever caricature feminists want to create for their
boogeypersons du jour, why would you seek to enter such spaces for the purposes of forcing them to be something they have no desire to be? Clearly it's not done in a manner that is persuasive.
Instead - Shrieking Banshee cut straight to the heart of the matter - 'Coercion' is okay? Persuasion requires engagement and is therefore verboten (because Sin by Association is a thing according to Feminist Leftist doctrine). Unironically, this leads to hostility and *is* "uncivilized". Because coercion by mob threat spreads the blame until no snowflake feels it's responsible for the avalanche. A curiously deceitful position from my view. It further renders the victimized feminists as mutually cooperative useful idiots that do not wish to own any responsibility for their views or actions - whether tacit or passive.
Quote from: Trond;1114561"Toxic masculinity". Don't know if you noticed, but recently a bunch of feminists went on Australian ABC and advocated violence against men.
I have met Australian women. That is just a Tuesday.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1114556This is the most entitled piece of crap I've ever seen here. "Give me what I want or I WILL HURT YOU!". That's toxic masculinity in a nutshell.
It also is the modus operandi of every social justice activist out there.
Almost like a mirror has been held up to the SJWs......
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1114570Give me what I want or I will hurt you is not how civilized people handle things.
Tell it to Antifa, maybe they will listen?
Greetings!
"Entitled"? Hmmm. I'm sorry, I don't understand a fucking thing you are saying, DeadDMwalking. I am not "entitled" nor have I maintained that men, or anyone else is "entitled" to anything. Entitlement has nothing to do with anything.
I have made some observations about how an increasingly feminist society influences and impacts men, and boys. Along with the other secular, Liberal policies and attitudes which promote divorce, abortion, and the primacy of the welfare state, which in many ways "replaces" the father, hence snowballing in psychological effects in relationships--promoting divorce and single mommies--the whole garden of shit that has had a hugely negative effect on the social fabric in this country--with a fallout being especially acute amongst children, and boys in particular.
I can see how all of these factors coordinate and influence the fragile and wounded mentalities of young men--and boys, with some of those effects being rage and violence, and nihilism. Beyond that, however, just seeing how the effects play out and influence normal families, and dating, and social dynamics amongst people.
These corrosive effects are pretty obvious to most reasonable people. I am merely drawing the connections, and observing trends and potential conclusions.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1114570Give me what I want or I will hurt you is not how civilized people handle things.
Before I continue: I don't super agree with SHARKS general aggression rhetoric, and I do think he's being hyperbolic, I do agree with his general sentiment.
Sorry to burst your bubble buddy...It is. It's been distorted, hidden and the consequences are hidden away...But that's still 100% true.
How do you think Law and order is any way enforced? The honor system?
Anyway he's talking about a completely true phenomenon of an underclass of increasingly isolated men becoming aggressive and lashing out. That's a 100% true phenomena. The only proposed solutions have been to collectively tell them to shut up or Isolate them more so they don't radicalize each other.
Shark, I think he took your previous post as a threat, as if you were going to shoot up a bunch of women or something.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114609Before I continue: I don't super agree with SHARKS general aggression rhetoric, and I do think he's being hyperbolic, I do agree with his general sentiment.
Sorry to burst your bubble buddy...It is. It's been distorted, hidden and the consequences are hidden away...But that's still 100% true.
How do you think Law and order is any way enforced? The honor system?
Anyway he's talking about a completely true phenomenon of an underclass of increasingly isolated men becoming aggressive and lashing out. That's a 100% true phenomena. The only proposed solutions have been to collectively tell them to shut up or Isolate them more so they don't radicalize each other.
Greetings!
Yes, Shrieking Banshee! *laughs* You understand what I am saying precisely. I'm not some crazy loon, rambling at myself by a busstop!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Trond;1114616Shark, I think he took your previous post as a threat, as if you were going to shoot up a bunch of women or something.
Greetings!
Hey Trond! Good to see you, my friend! *Laughs* Oh my god. Some kind of threat? You see, Trond. You and Shrieking Banshee understand what I am saying very well. And then...there's deadDMwalking. *Shakes Head* Sometimes, Trond, I wonder if there is something wrong with my English, as some people make me think I am talking Chinese or something, with how they interpret what I have written. *Laughing*
Thank you, my friend. That made me laugh so much I almost choked on my coffee with the absurdity of it.:D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: tenbones;1114583What degree of obligation is anyone under to 'like' you or your views, or beliefs? How many of those degrees of obligation you're demanding equate to the creation of resentment or anger or fear you're indicating you're against? And do they *really* matter based on your post of 'civility' above? I think it's it's completely rhetorical and falls apart under any realistic scrutiny. It's a call for tyranny.
If people that *don't* like you - or whatever it is you paint upon yourself that you call "identity" - want to gather together to be free from such demands of your social obligations, why would you imply they owe you such obligations in the first place, if indeed your true concerns are "fear" or "hatred" or whatever secondary concern is really being offered as a justification? If men want to be neanderthals and "bros" or whatever caricature feminists want to create for their boogeypersons du jour, why would you seek to enter such spaces for the purposes of forcing them to be something they have no desire to be? Clearly it's not done in a manner that is persuasive.
Instead - Shrieking Banshee cut straight to the heart of the matter - 'Coercion' is okay? Persuasion requires engagement and is therefore verboten (because Sin by Association is a thing according to Feminist Leftist doctrine). Unironically, this leads to hostility and *is* "uncivilized". Because coercion by mob threat spreads the blame until no snowflake feels it's responsible for the avalanche. A curiously deceitful position from my view. It further renders the victimized feminists as mutually cooperative useful idiots that do not wish to own any responsibility for their views or actions - whether tacit or passive.
Greetings!
RAWR! Tenbones in the HOUSE, my friend!:D
Preach on, brother!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1114556Maybe men are being too sensitive and feeling 'shit on' when they get exactly what everyone else gets in the same proportion. Too much acting like entitled snow-flakes for my taste.
Pot, meet kettle.
A pretentious SJW punk chud such as yourself should be the last person chiding others for being "entitled snowflakes"
Granted, I am a free speech advocate, so you have the right to spew this nonsense because we aren't RPG.net or anything like that.
And I have the right to tell you that you're an idiot and a hypocrite.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114609Anyway he's talking about a completely true phenomenon of an underclass of increasingly isolated men becoming aggressive and lashing out. That's a 100% true phenomena. The only proposed solutions have been to collectively tell them to shut up or Isolate them more so they don't radicalize each other.
According to Forbes, the 10 richest people in the world are men; there are two women in the top 20.
According to Forbes, the 10 best-paid actors in the world are men. Forbes ranks women separately, but the highest paid woman (Scarlett Johansson) would be tied for 10th place.
In 2018, of the top 10-highest grossing films, all 10 were directed by men.
In the Fortune 500, fewer than 5% of CEOs are women; all 10 of the top 10 CEOs are men.
I'm sure there are a lot of men who feel that they're
entitled to success, but I don't buy that there are institutional obstacles for men
generally to achieve success.
When a man says 'I want to be president' that's pretty crazy - we don't have that many, but all of the ones we've had have been men. You don't have to fight a perception that you're automatically unqualified because of your gender. And that's true with virtually EVERY career.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1114623According to Forbes, the 10 richest people in the world are men; there are two women in the top 20.
According to Forbes, the 10 best-paid actors in the world are men. Forbes ranks women separately, but the highest paid woman (Scarlett Johansson) would be tied for 10th place.
In 2018, of the top 10-highest grossing films, all 10 were directed by men.
In the Fortune 500, fewer than 5% of CEOs are women; all 10 of the top 10 CEOs are men.
I'm sure that somehow benefits the vast majority men, who are not wealthy CEOs or famous movie stars, and negates the vast majority of the suicides, homeless, workplace related deaths and homicide victims, who are also men. Because kings being men means that male peasants, who are expected to do all the heavy labor in society and fight its wars, are
also privileged. Somehow.
Not that any of this addresses the actual issue, which is that ordinary men, who are not wealthy or famous, are treated like shit.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1114623I'm sure there are a lot of men who feel that they're entitled to success,
And I'm sure you will point out specific examples of this or the promotion of that sentiment anywhere in this thread. Some day (though, I won't hold my breath).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1114623...but I don't buy that there are institutional obstacles for men generally to achieve success.
And yet that claim was never made here that I'm aware of. And it has nothing to do with the
actual point of the post you were replying to, which was about the
treatment of men by society.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1114623When a man says 'I want to be president' that's pretty crazy - we don't have that many, but all of the ones we've had have been men. You don't have to fight a perception that you're automatically unqualified because of your gender. And that's true with virtually EVERY career.
And neither do women in my experience. Just like they also don't have to fight the perception that they are violent rapists who are responsible for every problem and social ill since the dawn of civilization. Or are expected to STFU about it while simultaneously being told that all their personal problems arise from not expressing their feelings by people who DO NOT want to listen to them.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1114623According to Forbes, the 10 richest people in the world are men; there are two women in the top 20.
More men are also homeless than women. What is your point?
Maybe that's why they're so upset. Any victories they get are products of patriarchy and any time they are victims they don't exist or deserved it.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114636More men are also homeless than women. What is your point?
Maybe that's why they're so upset. Any victories they get are products of patriarchy and any time they are victims they don't exist or deserved it.
Few people consider that maybe part of the reason men accomplish so much, is because we expect them to take responsiblity for it.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1114640Few people consider that maybe part of the reason men accomplish so much, is because we expect them to take responsiblity for it.
Exactly. When society actually expects a certain group of people to pull their own weight, plus potentially their spouse's/ex's, their children's and their pets--OR ELSE--that can be a great motivational factor for getting their shit together rather than blaming other people for not doing it for them. Especially when you're explicitly told nobody gives a shit about your BS since you're a kid, even when they're valid concerns.
Men are more extreme; there are more extremely rich and extremely poor men.
Besides, men also have an extra incentive to try to make it big; by earning more a man gets not only more money, he gets more attention from women too. The same is not true the other way round.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1114556This is the most entitled piece of crap I've ever seen here. "Give me what I want or I WILL HURT YOU!". That's toxic masculinity in a nutshell.
Nobody owes you their companionship or obedience. When you destroy your relationships by acting in destructive ways, the system is getting better at identifying it.
Interestingly, I was able to find a statistics (specifically for Illinois) indicating that 51% of custody decisions, both parents agree that the mother should have full custody and 91% of custody decisions do not require the court to make a decision at all.
Maybe men are being too sensitive and feeling 'shit on' when they get exactly what everyone else gets in the same proportion. Too much acting like entitled snow-flakes for my taste.
Jesus SHARK you really triggered this NPC.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1114623According to Forbes, the 10 richest people in the world are men; there are two women in the top 20.
And there are women who benefit from the wealth these men have generated who have done fuck all to obtain it but instead spend it. How about you aim some of your derision at them.
Through my interactions with, and observations of, deadDMwalking I have come to find he has mastered the art of blatantly misreading statements, followed by interpreting them in the most uncharitable way possible, then twisting whatever intent and meaning he was able to extract into a snipe he feels like hunting; finally, constructing a vast, rickety shanty city that is his commentary atop that snipe rather than what you actually wrote.
I wouldn't worry about taking him terribly seriously. :p
I wish people could stop with all the derision in general. How about some basic respect? Sure there are some men who have no respect for women, in America and Europe they are quite often, albeit not always (dare I say it?) foreigners. That's a fact that people need to realize.
But then there is also the amount of bloody disrespect that has been coming from feminists for decades now. I'm not even talking so much about myself as the myth of how sexist western civilization is and has been. My grandfathers fought and bled and were imprisoned in WWII, and worked their asses off at construction etc after the war, while the women mostly waited at home. Yes, gender roles were more set in stone, but idea that the men were massively privileged is overrated. Men generally had shorter lives (my grandmothers outlived my grandfathers by decades). I can't believe some of the disrespect and bitching my grandfathers had to live through from the feminists and "redstockings" towards the end of their lives. I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who grew up in Europe, BTW.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1114640Few people consider that maybe part of the reason men accomplish so much, is because we expect them to take responsiblity for it.
Exactly. Not only responsibility, but sacrifice too. Men are more willing to sacrifice their own personal time and comforts than woman. that's why there are more men billionaires, directors, CEOs, etc.
Woman have been sold this false bill of goods that say they can have it all: children, family, career, and all the success that come with it.
But the sacrifice in health and personal time is a tremendous reality bitch slap in the face.
...and that's why men die younger, have the vast majority of work related accidents, and take a fucking bullet in war more than woman.
We WANT to protect woman from the harsh reality of the world.
Because they ARE the nurturers, the homemakers, and that is a noble cause as well. Without women doing those things, society will collapse.
But if a woman wants to make those sacrifices the same as men do, by all means go for it. Woman are completely free to do so.
Just don't expect any special treatment because you have a bush between your legs. You better woMAN the fuck up.
Quote from: Gagarth;1114660And there are women who benefit from the wealth these men have generated who have done fuck all to obtain it but instead spend it. How about you aim some of your derision at them.
I don't have the number at hand, but last I heard, on average, women spend more than they earn. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out where that extra money comes from.
In the USA women are the primary spenders of all resources. This is verified by more than just scientific studies: My economic market analysis!
Quote from: Ratman_tfFew people consider that maybe part of the reason men accomplish so much, is because we expect them to take responsiblity for it.
Quote from: blackstone;1114685Exactly. Not only responsibility, but sacrifice too. Men are more willing to sacrifice their own personal time and comforts than woman. that's why there are more men billionaires, directors, CEOs, etc.
Woman have been sold this false bill of goods that say they can have it all: children, family, career, and all the success that come with it.
But the sacrifice in health and personal time is a tremendous reality bitch slap in the face.
You're implying here that it's a sacrifice for a man to be a billionaire or CEO, while a woman who is a housewife taking care of the CEO's kids is taking her own personal time and comfort. Childcare and housework is not comfort or personal time -- it's labor. It can be rewarding -- but then a successful career can also be rewarding.
When one takes that labor into account, work time is roughly the same between men and women - at least in modern America. On average in today's society, men spend more time in paid labor than women - but they spend less time for unpaid childcare and housework than women do. Below is a breakdown of that:
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/03/14/chapter-6-time-in-work-and-leisure-patterns-by-gender-and-family-structure/
Compared to the 1950s, housework and some childcare has become much easier due to automation - and to the extent that women are spending less time doing that, they're spending more time at paid work. Plenty of mothers have a full-time or part-time job as well as cleaning up the house and taking care of the kids - while their husband focuses more on their career.
As far as men go -- the sacrifice in health generally is *not* necessary. The vast majority of men in modern day are not in dangerous professions that require sacrificing one's health. Working in an office doesn't destroy your body any more than pushing out babies and housework. Improving men's health is something for men to take responsibility for and work on, not something that we should expect women to do for us.
Every self-described feminist I know is enthusiastic and positive, and an absolute partner for men (not least their husbands and boyfriends).
I really like Jameela Jamil's take on it, which fits that perception perfectly.
[video=youtube;QDjiPz1vRr8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDjiPz1vRr8[/youtube]
Telling the incels that they are right about this stuff is neither helpful nor correct.
Quote from: Motorskills;1114719[video=youtube;QDjiPz1vRr8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDjiPz1vRr8[/youtube]
28 seconds in, and she calls men "Our greatest enemy".
Great start.
Quote from: jhkim;1114715You're implying here that it's a sacrifice for a man to be a billionaire or CEO, while a woman who is a housewife taking care of the CEO's kids is taking her own personal time and comfort. Childcare and housework is not comfort or personal time -- it's labor. It can be rewarding -- but then a successful career can also be rewarding.
I would say that if it was not a sacrifice to make a Billion dollars then either everyone would do it or we would live in Indonesia where the money is so worthless that everyone is a Billion Rupiahaire.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;111472028 seconds in, and she calls men "Our greatest enemy".
Great start.
She is not wrong. You have to have balls of steel to go up against the White Patriarchy that can literally oppress you with their words.
Quote from: jhkim;1114715As far as men go -- the sacrifice in health generally is *not* necessary. The vast majority of men in modern day are not in dangerous professions that require sacrificing one's health. Working in an office doesn't destroy your body any more than pushing out babies and housework. Improving men's health is something for men to take responsibility for and work on, not something that we should expect women to do for us.
That's quite a sheltered attitude.
(http://www.riskmanagementmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/chartoftheday_16564_civilian_occupations_with_the_highest_fatal_work_injury_rate_n-560x399.jpg)
Note every guy works in a cubicle. And if every guy did, the modern world would come to a screeching halt. And those jobs are predominatley worked by men.
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2009/08/31/business/economy/menwomenfatalities.jpg)
For every CEO, there's hundreds of guys geting crushed, maimed, poisoned or mutliated doing dangerous and necessary jobs.
Quote from: Motorskills;1114719Telling the incels that they are right about this stuff is neither helpful nor correct.
The fact that you linked that video is evidence that they are. That is not to say that many incels did not get into the rut they are by purely outside force. Many of these folks are just bitter loosers.
But when a speech about how "Men are our enemy but if we subvert them enough they can be our allies" is touted as a POSITIVE example of femminism, they are completly right in pointing out that they live in crazytown.
That video is disgusting. It shows a completely insulated and self-centered mentality. Any empathy it shows is only in how it can benefit her.
Quote from: Shasarak;1114722She is not wrong. You have to have balls of steel to go up against the White Patriarchy that can literally oppress you with their words.
Or with Fart Rape.....
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3994[/ATTACH]
Quote from: jhkim;1114715You're implying here that it's a sacrifice for a man to be a billionaire or CEO, while a woman who is a housewife taking care of the CEO's kids is taking her own personal time and comfort. Childcare and housework is not comfort or personal time -- it's labor. It can be rewarding -- but then a successful career can also be rewarding.
No, the implication is that men (or anyone really) have to make significant sacrifices in order to actually
become billionaires or CEOs. Not that I'm incredibly sympathetic towards billionaires, but I also understand that (barring extreme and unusual circumstances) billionaire status is not just handed to people for being the right gender. And the type of sacrifices that people normally have to make in order to achieve that level of success is something that most people regardless of gender are not willing to make. Most people have neither the temperament nor the talent or even the interest in becoming CEOs and taking all the responsibilities that come with it (I can't believe you're making me defend CEOs :( ).
And while yes, raising kids and doing housework is definitely labor, neither of those things is on the same level of soul crushing sacrifice and effort, nor does it require the same level of skill and talent, as actually doing "work". Especially when that work requires you to do hours of overtime almost every day and take on the responsibility of an entire enterprise that could cost companies millions or cost people' jobs if you screw things up.
And I seriously doubt that being a billionaire's housewife is that much work. This isn't a Joe Average's wife with a median salary we're talking about at this point. If she's a billionaire's wife she probably has people who do that for her. And even if she pulls in the work she's living a life of luxury worth many times a normal working woman's salary.
Quote from: Motorskills;1114719Telling the incels that they are right about this stuff is neither helpful nor correct.
Dismissing presumed incels as "incels" who are inherently wrong because "incels", however, is incredibly helpful and constructive, and totally doesn't highlight the point the post that kicked off this conversation was trying to make.
Quote from: jeff37923;1114727Or with Fart Rape.....
I feel like Eric Swalwell Fart Raped us all.
Quote from: jhkimAs far as men go -- the sacrifice in health generally is *not* necessary. The vast majority of men in modern day are not in dangerous professions that require sacrificing one's health. Working in an office doesn't destroy your body any more than pushing out babies and housework. Improving men's health is something for men to take responsibility for and work on, not something that we should expect women to do for us.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1114723For every CEO, there's hundreds of guys geting crushed, maimed, poisoned or mutliated doing dangerous and necessary jobs.
I said *the vast majority*, which is different than all. Yes, there are men who work in very dangerous jobs, but those are the rare exception. Workplace deaths aren't a significant source of men's lower lifespan compared to women. Statistically, men are far more likely to die of other causes - from heart attacks to suicide.
You cite 5,071 workplace fatalities in 2017 -- but that's less than 0.2% all deaths in 2017 (total of 2,813,503). For comparison, there were over
nine times as many suicides that year (47,173), and most of those were male (roughly 35,000). The suicide difference alone vastly outstrips the difference in workplace fatalities.
Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_09-508.pdf
And even the top ten jobs that you listed are only a minority of the 5,071 workplace fatalities. The majority of workplace fatalities occur in the more common jobs.
The answer is to make things safer for ourselves, rather than accept it as necessary sacrifice. Men doing risky things and getting killed isn't a result of feminism -- it's always been true. Thankfully, the murder rate is way down from it's peak in 1990 within the U.S., and some other forms of deaths are improved - but we can still do better.
I agree with your general sentiment jhkim. Just because some men do effort doesn't mean all men do effort.
Overall I find cock-waving about whos the most oppressed counterproductive.
But its just an element of the culture that I find most toxic. It feels like you can only fight off victim culture with more victim culture. But that doesn't solve the issue of a very self destrcutive and not solution oriented culture.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114748I agree with your general sentiment jhkim. Just because some men do effort doesn't mean all men do effort.
Overall I find cock-waving about whos the most oppressed counterproductive.
I don't think men are oppressed any more (or less) than women are oppressed. I think the discussion around sex suffers from the feminist "lens", which leans heavily into the idea of oppressor and oppressed.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1114754I think the discussion around sex suffers from the feminist "lens", which leans heavily into the idea of oppressor and oppressed.
Nah its worse than that. In the 2008 intersectionality boom, the entire universe exists in a lense of friend or enemy. And that sucks.
Quote from: jhkim;1114715As far as men go -- the sacrifice in health generally is *not* necessary. The vast majority of men in modern day are not in dangerous professions that require sacrificing one's health. Working in an office doesn't destroy your body any more than pushing out babies and housework. Improving men's health is something for men to take responsibility for and work on, not something that we should expect women to do for us.
I haven't noticed anyone saying that women should solve it for us. I think your data misses a whole lot though; e.g. my grandfather lived many years with only one functional lung because of damage from his work, and while he didn't technically die because of it, I am pretty sure that the damage shortened his life span. The problem, I think, is doing hard, or even dangerous, work and still getting treated as if we fell backwards into a pile of money because penis. Women, on the other hand, are constantly being told that any failures in life are not because of personal shortcomings, but because society is pushing them down. Or, that any field that women aren't interested in is filled with men because of sexism. Meanwhile, what I actually see, in many workplaces in the West at least, is everyone bending over backwards for them.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;111472028 seconds in, and she calls men "Our greatest enemy".
Great start.
You deliberately left out the key context of the two preceding words, what a shocker.
Edit:
look, you don't have to agree with her (or me), but her message is absolutely a positive one, for both women and men. The bit you are misrepresenting is related to a history of repression she lists, none of which is hardly news. (While there were some women opposed to women getting the vote (etc), it's generally been male-dominated structures (politics, etc) that have been the major obstacles.)
Quote from: jhkimAs far as men go -- the sacrifice in health generally is *not* necessary. The vast majority of men in modern day are not in dangerous professions that require sacrificing one's health. Working in an office doesn't destroy your body any more than pushing out babies and housework. Improving men's health is something for men to take responsibility for and work on, not something that we should expect women to do for us.
Quote from: Trond;1114764I haven't noticed anyone saying that women should solve it for us. I think your data misses a whole lot though; e.g. my grandfather lived many years with only one functional lung because of damage from his work, and while he didn't technically die because of it, I am pretty sure that the damage shortened his life span.
Things have changed a lot since your grandfather's time. Workplace safety has advanced hugely thanks to various advances. Below is deaths per 100,000 workers due to injury from 1913 to 1998.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3998[/ATTACH]
Source: https://www.nap.edu/read/9835/chapter/3#18
This tells me that the sacrifices of men working hasn't been because that dangerous work really needed to get done. It was done because work was being done wrong, and we can and have done much to improve things.
Quote from: jhkimThe problem, I think, is doing hard, or even dangerous, work and still getting treated as if we fell backwards into a pile of money because penis.
The men doing the dangerous work aren't the ones who are making piles of money. In general, they're getting paid crap. And that sucks -- but the problem isn't women, and I think trying to pin the blame on women and/or feminists for their problems is crap.
In particular, I would point to SHARK's comment that started off the current line of discussion:
Quote from: SHARKYep, and as our society continues to become more feminized, more focused on disenfranchising men, and glorifying single mothers and households ruled by women, the more savage and bloody the reprisal by angry, bitter men will be. The more alienated men feel, the more powerless, despised, and shit on by women, the courts, the schools, the media--the more they are going to seethe with anger and rage, and plot their savage revenge. MORE, MORE, and MORE, folks. We are not going to see *less* of this enraged violence and slaughter, but MORE. Every week, every fucking day. Keep thinking feminism is good, keep spoiling and coddling children, keep raising them in fucked up, single parent households led by fucking mommy and her train of loser fucking boyfriends. The rage will continue to flow endlessly.
This is a narrative of blame and victimhood which is pointless and stupid. Thankfully, most men don't actually buy into this. Contrary to claims of more violence and slaughter, the homicide rate has decreased by half since it's peak in 1990, and violent crime as a whole is down as well.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3999[/ATTACH]
Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/
The divorce rate is going down as well - and single-parent households are largely unchanged for the past 25 years - contrary to claims of rising problems.
My suggestion is, don't live your life as a whiny loser seething with rage and violence. People seething with rage and violence plotting revenge *should* be isolated and reviled.
Quote from: jhkim;1114715You're implying here that it's a sacrifice for a man to be a billionaire or CEO, while a woman who is a housewife taking care of the CEO's kids is taking her own personal time and comfort. Childcare and housework is not comfort or personal time -- it's labor. It can be rewarding -- but then a successful career can also be rewarding. .
You are either taking the piss or seriously brain damaged and you really do think the wife of a CEO or billionaire takes care of their kids or does any housework.
Quote from: jhkim;1114774My suggestion is, don't live your life as a whiny loser seething with rage and violence. People seething with rage and violence plotting revenge *should* be isolated and reviled.
How many feminazi's and SJW agitators are you going to say this too? How about some of these:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50519899 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50519899)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/07/canadian-judge-punching-a-caucasian-and-yelling-i-hate-white-people-isnt-a-hate-crime/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/07/canadian-judge-punching-a-caucasian-and-yelling-i-hate-white-people-isnt-a-hate-crime/)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2690395/unhinged-feminist-youtuber-issues-crazed-call-for-women-to-kill-all-male-babies-and-any-man-you-see-in-the-streets/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2690395/unhinged-feminist-youtuber-issues-crazed-call-for-women-to-kill-all-male-babies-and-any-man-you-see-in-the-streets/)
Quote from: Motorskills;1114771You deliberately left out the key context of the two preceding words, what a shocker.
Edit: look, you don't have to agree with her (or me), but her message is absolutely a positive one, for both women and men. The bit you are misrepresenting is related to a history of repression she lists, none of which is hardly news. (While there were some women opposed to women getting the vote (etc), it's generally been male-dominated structures (politics, etc) that have been the major obstacles.)
I'm not misrepresenting it. I think she's wrong. I think she reinterprets the relationship between men and women with a feminist lens of oppressor and oppressed, and that warps her conclusions.
Feminsts ask us to listen to women. Consider a thought experiment, put yourself in the place of a woman who opposed sufferage, and imagine
why they didn't want the vote. (Protip: Interalized misogyny is the wrong answer)
Quote from: Shasarak;1114722She is not wrong. You have to have balls of steel to go up against the White Patriarchy that can literally oppress you with their words.
wrong. If there was a "White Patriarchy", she wouldn't be up there in the first place. The alleged "White patriarchy" wouldn't allow it.
Greetings!
Jhkim, your links and statistics are meaningless to my larger argument. My point is that ever since the "Cultural Revolution" of the 1960's and 1970's, this country has suffered from the influence of the fucking Feminists, Liberals, Communists, and other scum.
Our country is suffering the disasterous fallout from embracing Feminism, Liberalism, exalting the welfare state, embracing drugs, Divorce, single mommies, a culture that spoils and coddles children, and in recent years a growing strain of misandry. In pop culture, the disenfranchisement and belittling of men can easily be seen in many television programs, starting many years ago, where men and fathers are routinely depicted as stupid and incompetent.
Drug use as well, is ravaging our society. I keep seeing reports that crystal meth, opiates, and heroin are going through the roof. The mass consumption and abuse of drugs is such a problem, we are also seeing increasing numbers of "Zombies". Zombies have had their minds so blasted by drugs that they are fucking done--they are beyond recovery, and simply live on, totally focused on their next high. They resist all forms of recovery, and are essentially useless, drug-blasted zombies.
All of these things--Feminism, Liberalism, Communism, Drugs--the exaltation of the Welfare State--are all destroying America. This country is getting weaker and more fucked up by not the decade, like before, but by the year now. The corruption and rot seems to be *accelerating*
And, like I have explained to my friends, one must always remember, you can't have Globalism take over if there is a strong, free, and powerful America.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkim;1114774Things have changed a lot since your grandfather's time. Workplace safety has advanced hugely thanks to various advances. Below is deaths per 100,000 workers due to injury from 1913 to 1998.
Of course things have changed. We're humans, and we are excellent at improving things. Still, saying that accidents just happened because they "were done wrong" is a bit naive. "Why did men die of scurvy on sailing ships? Why, it's their own fault for not knowing vitamins and that they should be on a ship with an engine, back in the 16th century" Men of my grandfather's age worked in steam locomotives because steam locomotives were what we had. There was no alternative until better locomotives were invented.
Jhkm, your reading is still lopsided. You have to know that if people in general were told that more than 90% of workplace deaths were women (not men, which is the case) then there would be a general outrage. Men are routinely blamed for paying women less, even though hourly pay is now often calculated by computers that completely ignore your sex. Hell, men are even blamed for skinny women on women's magazines edited by women.
To be sure I do blame some men for part of this. Spineless dudes constantly agreeing to everything being said on a stage featuring a "strong feminist woman". No wonder why Milo Y-whatever took the world like a storm when he just went up there and said things like"you know that was a load of feminist bullcrap". The world badly needed to hear it.
Quote from: SHARK;1114792Greetings!
Jhkim, your links and statistics are meaningless to my larger argument.
It's also meaningless to all the other side arguments that sprang as a result. The only reason people even brought up workplace death, homelessness, etc. and other ills statistically more likely to be suffered by men is that deadDMwalking brought up the minuscule and VASTLY smaller percentage of men that happen to be the riches people in the world as an example of how good men supposedly have it in society, as if those men were the norm or became billionaires just cuz they're men. And any man just has to present his balls and he'll be made President.
Are men who suffer workplace death statistically a minuscule portion of the population? Sure, but they are VASTLY (by orders of magnitude) more men who die (or get maimed, etc.) from dangerous jobs than those who become wealthy CEOs. Yet bring up the insignificant portion of the population who happen to be wealthy men (usually as a result of their work, unusual talents and sacrifices) as an example of "male privilege" is acceptable, but bring up how men are VASTLY more likely than women to be homeless, die in dangerous but necessary (dispite Jhkim's Utopian sentiments on the matter) jobs they've been expected to do since the dawn of civilization, kill themselves or be the victims of homicide, etc. as a counterpoint to this ridiculous idea of "male privilege" is somehow something that needs to be challenged at every turn.
That men who actually die doing dangerous jobs are only a minuscule portion of the male population is irrelevant. The point is that a group who's expected by society to make sacrifices that may cost them their lives or at least their health and is completely disregarded (i.e. more likely to be homeless) if they don't become successful or at least pull their own weight can't be "privileged", and an infinitesimal portion of them happening to also rise through the challenges society expects them to face and become the richest people of the world (like that benefits the gargantuan number of men who aren't) doesn't change that.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1114796It's also meaningless to all the other side arguments that sprang as a result. The only reason people even brought up workplace death, homelessness, etc. and other ills statistically more likely to be suffered by men is that deadDMwalking brought up the minuscule and VASTLY smaller percentage of men that happen to be the riches people in the world as an example of how good men supposedly have it in society, as if those men were the norm or became billionaires just cuz they're men. And any man just has to present his balls and he'll be made President.
Are men who suffer workplace death statistically a minuscule portion of the population? Sure, but they are VASTLY (by orders of magnitude) more men who die (or get maimed, etc.) from dangerous jobs than those who become wealthy CEOs. Yet bring up the insignificant portion of the population who happen to be wealthy men (usually as a result of their work, unusual talents and sacrifices) as an example of "male privilege" is acceptable, but bring up how men are VASTLY more likely than women to be homeless, die in dangerous but necessary (dispite Jhkim's Utopian sentiments on the matter) jobs they've been expected to do since the dawn of civilization, kill themselves or be the victims of homicide, etc. as a counterpoint to this ridiculous idea of "male privilege" is somehow something that needs to be challenged at every turn.
That men who actually die doing dangerous jobs are only a minuscule portion of the male population is irrelevant. The point is that a group who's expected by society to make sacrifices that may cost them their lives or at least their health and is completely disregarded (i.e. more likely to be homeless) if they don't become successful or at least pull their own weight can't be "privileged", and an infinitesimal portion of them happening to also rise through the challenges society expects them to face and become the richest people of the world (like that benefits the gargantuan number of men who aren't) doesn't change that.
Greetings!
Oh, preach on, my friend! Preach the fuck on! Yeah, the whole "Male Privelege" nonsense is just bullshit. DeadDMwalking and Jhkim both love that shit though. Meanwhile, the vast majority of men don't experience any kind of "privelege"--but instead must work their asses off and struggle in a harsh society that is increasingly hostile towards men in many ways.
Here is an experiment. Go to a social agency, and tell them you are a minority, or a woman, with three kids. Same with schools. You will see many programs available to you, as well as grants, scholarships, counseling, and a host of programs to help you.
Tell them you are an unemployed white man.
*Chirp...chirp...chirp*
Like a friend of mine told me...."If you are an unemployed white man, you're fucked."
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Motorskills;1114771You deliberately left out the key context of the two preceding words, what a shocker.
We are not stupid. We got exactly what she was saying. Like at this point of conversion if you believe the words that popped out of her mouth where positive and respectful then I think you too stuck in your own echo chamber to view any other system then the feminist system as valid.
As long as your entire universe consists of nothing but victim and victimizer mentality, then you will forever be stuck in a loop of hatred and paranoia.
Quote from: Motorskills;1114719Every self-described feminist I know is enthusiastic and positive, and an absolute partner for men (not least their husbands and boyfriends).
I really like Jameela Jamil's take on it, which fits that perception perfectly.
[video=youtube;QDjiPz1vRr8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDjiPz1vRr8[/youtube]
Telling the incels that they are right about this stuff is neither helpful nor correct.
Enthusiastic, "positive" and completely nuts if she thinks this is a "positive message". It's radical hysteria.
"Build these men from scratch to fit women" seriously? F**k off Jameela.
Quote from: blackstone;1114785wrong. If there was a "White Patriarchy", she wouldn't be up there in the first place. The alleged "White patriarchy" wouldn't allow it.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4000[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Trond;1114805Enthusiastic, "positive" and completely nuts if she thinks this is a "positive message". It's radical hysteria.
"Build these men from scratch to fit women" seriously? F**k off Jameela.
Greetings!
Holy fucking Geesus, Trond! Yeah, Jameela is fucking nuts. That's right. Go ahead and listen to her, and continue to raise young boys being mind-fucked with that Feminist bullshit. Create more feminized, cucked Soy-boys that get stuffed in the house doing all of the housework and her mountains of fucking laundry while she goes out for a "Girl's Night Out"--and gets herself ploughed senseless by a bad-boy stud. Or more angry, seething Incels that can't get fucked because women laugh at them and view them as socially retarded, feminized troglodytes, permanently consigned to being kept as a "Beta Orbiter" stuck in the "Friend Zone" at best by any women he might know.
Yeah. Follow her poisonous fucking program. Meanwhile, fewer men are even interested in getting married to Feminist, bitchy hogs, all tatted up and sporting purple coloured hair with their trackrecord of several divorces, several undisciplined brats born to multiple sperm donors, and an epic number of strange cocks she's fucked while riding the cock-carousel for years.
Geesus our country is fucking doomed with such malicious, brainwashed women.
I heard that Sweden--seemingly dominated by Feminists--has made it a law that men are required to sit on the toilet and piss like a woman. In any event, Feminism is well-entrenched throughout Western Europe, and continues to poison the feedback loop into the Feminist morons here in the States.
The women here cry all the time about "Where have all the good men gone?" *Laughs* Yeah, with 70-80% of all divorces initiated by women--more and more men are deeply suspicious and wary of being fucked over by women, and taken to the cleaners in Feminist-dominated divorce courts. Instead many men evidently opt for never commiting, never marrying, and just pumping and dumping the women, viewing them here in America especially--as broken and worthless for pair bonding and building any kind of successful relationship. I wonder why that would be? *Laughs* Keep going back to the fucking trough for another serving! Roll the fucking dice with your life and wealth, and pray she's not fucking some co-worker behind your back and planning on divorce-raping your ass at the worst opportunity.
And the bitter, crying American Feminist women seethe with rage at all of the American men rejecting them--and instead choosing to find more agreeable women in Asia or Latin America.
Women in this country are so fucking brainwashed and damaged it's so pathetic and sad. Hopefully, someday men and women here will wake the fuck up and start to really reject Feminism as the poison it is. Feminism poisons the soul, and poisons the family.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK;1114816Greetings!
Holy fucking Geesus, Trond!......
Re: Sweden; it was proposed as a rule by the Left political party, but I don't think it went anywhere. I know a thing or two about the goings-on in Sweden, and it has at times been beyond belief. It's truly bizarre, but some Swedes aren't having it anymore so we'll see where it goes.
Re feminists and finding the right guy, I think you'll like this story: I know a Canadian woman, a friend of my wife, who has this strange tendency to go on feminist rants every now and then, even though she can be pretty cool at other times. Once she suddenly went unhinged when someone mentioned jokingly that Hillary Clinton reminded them a bit of a bitchy school teacher. She also accused her own dad of being racist for no reason whatsoever. Anyway, she's been looking for a guy in vain for years now, and she started "innocently" (seemingly) hanging out with this SJW guy who was engaged to be married, with a pregnant fiancee and all. I didn't like him, as he always had the "correct" feminist opinion on everything. Until one night he suddenly threw himself at our friend, going for the tongue in mouth, the whole thing, and she had to get out of there. My wife pretended to be "so surprised" when she heard the story, the guy was expecting his first baby with his fiancee after all. But no, we really weren't actually surprised that that guy was a bit of a slimy creep :D
Quote from: Trond;1114818Re: Sweden; it was proposed as a rule by the Left political party, but I don't think it went anywhere. I know a thing or two about the goings-on in Sweden, and it has at times been beyond belief. It's truly bizarre, but some Swedes aren't having it anymore so we'll see where it goes.
Re feminists and finding the right guy, I think you'll like this story: I know a Canadian woman, a friend of my wife, who has this strange tendency to go on feminist rants every now and then, even though she can be pretty cool at other times. Once she suddenly went unhinged when someone mentioned jokingly that Hillary Clinton reminded them a bit of a bitchy school teacher. She also accused her own dad of being racist for no reason whatsoever. Anyway, she's been looking for a guy in vain for years now, and she started "innocently" (seemingly) hanging out with this SJW guy who was engaged to be married, with a pregnant fiancee and all. I didn't like him, as he always had the "correct" feminist opinion on everything. Until one night he suddenly threw himself at our friend, going for the tongue in mouth, the whole thing, and she had to get out of there. My wife pretended to be "so surprised" when she heard the story, the guy was expecting his first baby with his fiancee after all. But no, we really weren't actually surprised that that guy was a bit of a slimy creep :D
So the engaged guy with the pregnant fiancee "threw himself" at her?
Mmm hmm. o_O
Quote from: Trond;1114818Re: Sweden; it was proposed as a rule by the Left political party, but I don't think it went anywhere. I know a thing or two about the goings-on in Sweden, and it has at times been beyond belief. It's truly bizarre, but some Swedes aren't having it anymore so we'll see where it goes.
Re feminists and finding the right guy, I think you'll like this story: I know a Canadian woman, a friend of my wife, who has this strange tendency to go on feminist rants every now and then, even though she can be pretty cool at other times. Once she suddenly went unhinged when someone mentioned jokingly that Hillary Clinton reminded them a bit of a bitchy school teacher. She also accused her own dad of being racist for no reason whatsoever. Anyway, she's been looking for a guy in vain for years now, and she started "innocently" (seemingly) hanging out with this SJW guy who was engaged to be married, with a pregnant fiancee and all. I didn't like him, as he always had the "correct" feminist opinion on everything. Until one night he suddenly threw himself at our friend, going for the tongue in mouth, the whole thing, and she had to get out of there. My wife pretended to be "so surprised" when she heard the story, the guy was expecting his first baby with his fiancee after all. But no, we really weren't actually surprised that that guy was a bit of a slimy creep :D
Greetings!
*Laughing* Very cool, Trond! What a jackass SJW, huh? I'm not surprised, either, like your wife. It does seem like all of these virtue-signaling, cucked feminist soy-boys are, deep down, socially retarded troglodytes. Oh, wait! Yeah, that's what they shrilly accuse traditionally masculine, "patriarchal" neanderthal men of being!:D
Yes, that's right, Trond. I know what you'rethinking. A fair-minded psychologist would observe that such feminist soy-boys making such accusations are *PROJECTING*. Imagine that?
And yes, thank you for confirming my notes on Sweden. They may have not officially passed such a law--yet, at any rate--but they certainly want to!:D Fucking amazing, you know? How can any adult take these feminists seriously? It's like they are all spoiled, delusional, spiteful and bitter children that didn't get picked for the kickball team. No matter their actual age, they are trapped inside an emotional hell-scape fabricated by their own social-misfit identity of when they were 12 years old, ugly and fat. Most of these feminists--male and female alike--are deep down, miserable, bitter, and terribly unhappy. They rage at the world, and seek forever to get revenge against those that are more attractive, more successful, and more popular than they are, or more pointedly, were when they were in school. They have since swallowed deeply from the Feminist Koolaid, and believe they are on some noble crusade against the "Patriarchy" of the evil, white Sauron.
As an aside, much of these constant social battles are largely held here, in the West. Most men in India, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America laugh at the whole idea of feminism. But here and in Europe, well, fuck it. we just keep holding on to a poisonous, bankrupt philosophy, and let it blast through and ruin our entire society.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Men have more success in business and entertainment because men take more risks. Making big money takes big risks unless you are very lucky or very connected.
As a teacher, I took no risks and earned the exact same as female teachers. As an independent consultant, I take big risks and earn more than people (male or female) with the same education. Salary gigs paid me every two weeks as long as I showed up and did my monkey dance. Surviving on my own business or own commissions means I eat what I hunt...and that means sometimes I didn't eat.
Risk taking involves lots of failures. Failure is painful. I know failure very intimately, so I understand why so few people want to take risks. It's also why most female risk takers demonstrate many male traits, often sacrificing family and relationships like their male counterparts.
Its also why liberals HATE successful men. There are biological realities behind why men take more risks than women, thus in the world of liberals, men must be broken and destroyed.
Quote from: SHARK;1114618I'm not some crazy loon, rambling at myself by a busstop!
That's true! You have friends at the bus stop! :D
Quote from: Antiquation!;1114677I wouldn't worry about taking him terribly seriously. :p
We got here because we didn't take seriously the destruction of our culture by the MSM and the indoctrination of our children by the education system. Now its too late and all we can do is stand witness to the fall of the West.
Quote from: Trond;1114678I can't believe some of the disrespect and bitching my grandfathers had to live through from the feminists and "redstockings" towards the end of their lives.
What are redstockings?
Quote from: Motorskills;1114719Every self-described feminist I know is enthusiastic and positive, and an absolute partner for men
LOL.
And they're stunning and brave too!!
Quote from: Ratman_tf;111472028 seconds in, and she calls men "Our greatest enemy".
Great start.
Did you expect anything less from someone Motorskills recommended?
But she knows her audience would lap up her bullshit.
Here's more from this worthless clown:
I was bombarded with a narrative that had no alternative. There were never any women who were celebrated for their intellect ... and all of my magazines were selling me weight loss products or telling me to be thin. Otherwise, I wasn't worth anything (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jameela_Jamil)She was born in Londonstan in 1986 so she was 14 in 2000. How dumb does her audience have to be to believe that in 2000 AD in the UK there were NEVER any women celebrated for their intellect? The answer is "white woman dumb".
Quote from: Shasarak;1114722She is not wrong. You have to have balls of steel to go up against the White Patriarchy that can literally oppress you with their words.
That's why she's hooked up with White Boy musician James Blake! So she can get her daily dose of White Patriarchy to fight against!
Quote from: SHARK;1114792All of these things--Feminism, Liberalism, Communism, Drugs--the exaltation of the Welfare State--are all destroying America. This country is getting weaker and more fucked up by not the decade, like before, but by the year now. The corruption and rot seems to be *accelerating*
Of course it's accelerating! What's opposing them?
The Left has the Media which means they control the culture and politics are downstream of culture.
The Left has the Social Media which means they control what people can find online, and thus control what people believe.
The Left has the Education system which means they control what children learn as truth.
The Right has???? Tax cuts? Flags? BBQ? The Groyper War?
Quote from: Spinachcat;1114834Of course it's accelerating! What's opposing them?
The Left has the Media which means they control the culture and politics are downstream of culture.
The Left has the Social Media which means they control what people can find online, and thus control what people believe.
The Left has the Education system which means they control what children learn as truth.
The Right has???? Tax cuts? Flags? BBQ? The Groyper War?
Gteetings!
So true, my friend, so true! I sometimes feel like I am one of the last remaining Tyrannosaurs, wandering through the world overwhelmed by gibbering baboons, wondering, WTF happened to the world I grew up in? All the fucking baboons are screeching at everyone, throwing shit at each other, while they burn everything down in a hysterical frenzy. Entirely blind and smugly arrogant to the world they are destroying forever.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Spinachcat;1114832What are redstockings?
The blatantly commie branch of feminism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redstockings
Its also important to not attribute successes of others onto oneself because of similarity.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1114832As a teacher, I took no risks and earned the exact same as female teachers. As an independent consultant, I take big risks and earn more than people (male or female) with the same education. Salary gigs paid me every two weeks as long as I showed up and did my monkey dance. Surviving on my own business or own commissions means I eat what I hunt...and that means sometimes I didn't eat.
Risk taking involves lots of failures. Failure is painful. I know failure very intimately, so I understand why so few people want to take risks. It's also why most female risk takers demonstrate many male traits, often sacrificing family and relationships like their male counterparts.
It's funny, Spinachcat, because for me it has been the opposite. I've been a teacher as well as a software engineer. I found that software engineering requires far less sacrifices for me -- it involves less and more flexible hours, easier accreditation, simpler recruitment, and much better pay. I get unsolicited calls all the time to recruit me as a software engineer, while I had to struggle to get interviews for a permanent teaching position for half the salary. I wanted to teach because I like it and think it's important, but I had to support my family and that has won out.
Now, I don't think that my case is typical -- most people have to struggle to make ends meet regardless of their choices. But ultimately, I don't think that the system is fair. Hard work is always rewarded to some degree, but some people work really hard and make sacrifices just to make ends meet -- while others sacrifice less to live in luxury.
I feel like the "men make sacrifices" argument is based on a "life is fair" sentiment -- that billionaire CEOs must be deserving of their wealth somehow -- like this argument from VisionStorm:
Quote from: VisionStorm;1114730No, the implication is that men (or anyone really) have to make significant sacrifices in order to actually become billionaires or CEOs. Not that I'm incredibly sympathetic towards billionaires, but I also understand that (barring extreme and unusual circumstances) billionaire status is not just handed to people for being the right gender. And the type of sacrifices that people normally have to make in order to achieve that level of success is something that most people regardless of gender are not willing to make. Most people have neither the temperament nor the talent or even the interest in becoming CEOs and taking all the responsibilities that come with it (I can't believe you're making me defend CEOs :( ).
WTF? I don't see why you're defending CEO's either. I don't think it's necessary to argue against me. I believe that CEOs make some sacrifices -- but I also think that there are lots of people who make just as many sacrifices as CEOs, and they get far less. The system might sometimes be fair, and someone is a billionaire CEO who worked their way up from the bottom -- but very often it is connections, corruption, and/or luck that puts people at the top. Life isn't fair - and if you argue that it is, I'd like to see evidence beyond our personal experiences.
Quote from: jhkim;1114881WTF? I don't see why you're defending CEO's either. I don't think it's necessary to argue against me. I believe that CEOs make some sacrifices -- but I also think that there are lots of people who make just as many sacrifices as CEOs, and they get far less. The system might sometimes be fair, and someone is a billionaire CEO who worked their way up from the bottom -- but very often it is connections, corruption, and/or luck that puts people at the top. Life isn't fair - and if you argue that it is, I'd like to see evidence beyond our personal experiences.
So what exactly is the point of bringing up that there are less women CEOs? Is it to point out that there are fewer women with connections, corruption and/or luck than men?
Who would want to be a CEO? I certainly don't. I want a decently tolerable job that pays my bills and gives me some spending money. I don't want to spend my time making lists of employees to lay off to make some financial projections come out right for the stockholders. Perhaps, as a group, there are more women than men who think that way.
Quote from: jhkim;1114881WTF? I don't see why you're defending CEO's either.
Because you brought them up.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1114884So what exactly is the point of bringing up that there are less women CEOs? Is it to point out that there are fewer women with connections, corruption and/or luck than men?
I didn't bring up women CEOs -- deadDMwalking did. I would agree with a criticism that simply pointing out the disparity in CEOs isn't proof of discrimination against women. Subtle discrimination is very hard to either prove or disprove. Though, I'm also not convinced that just claiming "men make sacrifices" or such is proof of lack of discrimination.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1114884Who would want to be a CEO? I certainly don't. I want a decently tolerable job that pays my bills and gives me some spending money. I don't want to spend my time making lists of employees to lay off to make some financial projections come out right for the stockholders. Perhaps, as a group, there are more women than men who think that way.
Perhaps. It's difficult to tell. I don't approve of strong claims either way in this data, because it's hard to isolate.
Mostly, I'm reacting to the over-the-top claims of male oppression by SHARK. I particularly like the contrast of these:
From post #869:
Quote from: SHARKYep, and as our society continues to become more feminized, more focused on disenfranchising men, and glorifying single mothers and households ruled by women, the more savage and bloody the reprisal by angry, bitter men will be. The more alienated men feel, the more powerless, despised, and shit on by women, the courts, the schools, the media--the more they are going to seethe with anger and rage, and plot their savage revenge. MORE, MORE, and MORE, folks. We are not going to see *less* of this enraged violence and slaughter, but MORE. Every week, every fucking day. Keep thinking feminism is good, keep spoiling and coddling children, keep raising them in fucked up, single parent households led by fucking mommy and her train of loser fucking boyfriends. The rage will continue to flow endlessly.
From post #932:
Quote from: SHARK;1114824How can any adult take these feminists seriously? It's like they are all spoiled, delusional, spiteful and bitter children that didn't get picked for the kickball team. No matter their actual age, they are trapped inside an emotional hell-scape fabricated by their own social-misfit identity of when they were 12 years old, ugly and fat. Most of these feminists--male and female alike--are deep down, miserable, bitter, and terribly unhappy. They rage at the world, and seek forever to get revenge against those that are more attractive, more successful, and more popular than they are, or more pointedly, were when they were in school.
So, which side is the one filled with rage and set on revenge for their oppression by more successful opposition? I'm having a hard time telling.
Quote from: jhkim;1114881WTF? I don't see why you're defending CEO's either. I don't think it's necessary to argue against me. I believe that CEOs make some sacrifices -- but I also think that there are lots of people who make just as many sacrifices as CEOs, and they get far less. The system might sometimes be fair, and someone is a billionaire CEO who worked their way up from the bottom -- but very often it is connections, corruption, and/or luck that puts people at the top. Life isn't fair - and if you argue that it is, I'd like to see evidence beyond our personal experiences.
When you were a teacher I would assume that you noticed that children have different abilities and interests that may result in them doing different things when they grew up irregardless of "the system"?
Quote from: jhkim;1114894I didn't bring up women CEOs -- deadDMwalking did. I would agree with a criticism that simply pointing out the disparity in CEOs isn't proof of discrimination against women. Subtle discrimination is very hard to either prove or disprove. Though, I'm also not convinced that just claiming "men make sacrifices" or such is proof of lack of discrimination.
It has been over a year since the release of the gender-blind Uber Pay Gap Study (https://www.forbes.com/sites/avivahwittenbergcox/2018/09/23/gender-paygap-uber-case-study/#534ca021b555) showed a 7% difference in pay. There were a couple of different explanations suggested in the study but "subtle discrimination" was not one of them.
How subtle does the discrimination have to be that in these days of the Metoo movement no one can actually find any evidence of it while study after study show that differences in personality and personal choice explain it all?
Quote from: Shasarak;1114896It has been over a year since the release of the gender-blind Uber Pay Gap Study (https://www.forbes.com/sites/avivahwittenbergcox/2018/09/23/gender-paygap-uber-case-study/#534ca021b555) showed a 7% difference in pay. There were a couple of different explanations suggested in the study but "subtle discrimination" was not one of them.
How subtle does the discrimination have to be that in these days of the Metoo movement no one can actually find any evidence of it while study after study show that differences in personality and personal choice explain it all?
I'm not sure how you're coming to that conclusion based on the Uber Pay Gap. A 7% difference is much smaller than the gender wage gap in other fields -- which overall is currently 19% (i.e. women's earnings within a field are 19% lower than men's). If the Uber Pay Gap study were representative of jobs in general, then that would imply that women's wages would be 12% higher on average if all jobs were gender blind. Of course, we can't prove that Uber is representative of other fields -- but it's one data point to suggest that.
In most jobs, there's no way to be gender blind in selection. There are some stand-ins for that, though. For example, this study tested identical resumes with "John" or "Jennifer" as the listed name for low-level academic jobs, and found significantly lower reviews and 13% less recommended pay for Jennifer.
https://gender.stanford.edu/news-publications/gender-news/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer
Of course, that's just one study in one field (low-level STEM academic jobs). Other fields will likely have different biases. In a study in a different field, Zety compared different names on identical resumes -- and found a bias towards men, but only a difference of 2% in callback rate.
https://zety.com/work-life/resume-bias
It's hard to generalize across these. However, it is simply false to say that there is no evidence of discrimination. You can dispute about how to generalize these, but the studies exist.
Quote from: jhkim;1114898I'm not sure how you're coming to that conclusion based on the Uber Pay Gap. A 7% difference is much smaller than the gender wage gap in other fields -- which overall is currently 19% (i.e. women's earnings within a field are 19% lower than men's). If the Uber Pay Gap study were representative of jobs in general, then that would imply that women's wages would be 12% higher on average if all jobs were gender blind. Of course, we can't prove that Uber is representative of other fields ....
That's some truly bizarre math.
Quote from: jhkim;1114898It's hard to generalize across these. However, it is simply false to say that there is no evidence of discrimination. You can dispute about how to generalize these, but the studies exist.
Since we dont want to generalise then which studies in particular show that evidence of discrimination?
It's funny about the discussion of female CEOs. When I was a headhunter, I worked a few years in the senior living field recruiting high talent nursing directors who are 95% female and regional executives who were 60% male. These positions paid between $100k to $200k with bonuses. I never had a male candidate ask me to only place him in a job with a male boss, but almost half my female candidates would not work for another woman.
As for the pay gap, male candidates rarely cared for anything beyond salary, title and bonus. For them, it was about career advancement almost universally. Female candidates were much more interested in commute, flexibility and benefits and would happily trade salary for these factors. I probably placed two dozen women in lateral salary moves that cut their commute, or let them make their own hours. I never placed a man for less than a $25k salary bump.
Quote from: jhkim;1114881It's funny, Spinachcat, because for me it has been the opposite. I've been a teacher as well as a software engineer. I found that software engineering requires far less sacrifices for me -- it involves less and more flexible hours, easier accreditation, simpler recruitment, and much better pay.
Are you a freelance software engineer? AKA, work from contract to contract that you arrange as a 1099, or salaried permanent position with a company with benefits?
It's quite often true that higher paying gigs are less stressful than lower paying jobs. However, I wasn't contrasting low salary vs. high salary as involving risk taking. There's no notable risk there, unless you're choosing between vulnerable startups vs. established firms. I'm talking salary vs. commission as risk taking. The risk of starting your own business without knowing where the next rent check or mortgage payment is coming from. The risk of trading a decent salary gig for the possibility of making big money as your own boss. That level of risk is much more male oriented because safety is more important for women.
Quote from: jhkim;1114881I get unsolicited calls all the time to recruit me as a software engineer, while I had to struggle to get interviews for a permanent teaching position for half the salary.
That's because software engineers are worth $25k to $50k to a headhunting firm and the hunters get 35% to 50% of whatever they bring into the firm. If you were an experienced C programmer in Silicon Valley during 2000-2003, I probably called you too!
This is what I'm talking about regarding risk. Most headhunters are men. Why? It's a high risk, high pay gig. They have zero job security. We called up all the jhkims we could every day and song and danced them to join our paying client because if we didn't convince at least one per month to switch jobs, we got canned with no unemployment! However, if we got programmers to switch jobs to our clients on a regular basis, we made piles of cash.
Quote from: jhkim;1114881I wanted to teach because I like it and think it's important, but I had to support my family and that has won out.
I didn't leave special education because of the kids.
If you miss teaching, consider offering a once a week class through your church for whatever age group you like. "Science Discovery for Teens", etc. If your church is like most, its got unused space and would love to offer something free and beneficial to their congregation's kids.
Quote from: jhkim;1114881I feel like the "men make sacrifices" argument is based on a "life is fair" sentiment -- that billionaire CEOs must be deserving of their wealth somehow.
I've never met a billionaire, but I've worked with many millionaires and multi-millionaires. Those who were business owners most certainly made significant sacrifices along the way that others would not, especially those who started from scratch.
In the 1990s, I attended a presentation by Donald Trump where he discussed the advantage of being 24/7 work focused and tossing aside any work/life balance. He asked the audience to consider whether they got more fulfillment out of work or life and to really analyze where we got our happiness. He said most people got more out of life than work, but he and others, loved work more than anything.
That discussion stuck with me because most of the high success business owners I've worked with (guys who made tens of millions) were people who were successful because their business was their highest priority in their life.
Quote from: jhkim;1114894So, which side is the one filled with rage and set on revenge for their oppression by more successful opposition? I'm having a hard time telling.
Both.
Rage and revenge is what we get when we turn segments of society against each other. That's why I say America is special and unique, but Americans are no different than Rwandans at the core of being humans living with a thin veneer of civilization. All the psycho-violence that afflicted Rwanda could easily be our future.
It's amazing to me to find people that still believe there is a gender driven pay gap. It has been debunked so many times by so many institutions that the concept points to an ideological blind spot that has no basis in reality. It comes down to personal choice. The field chosen, the hours worked, the time taken off are the primary factors that drive any disparity in pay. I can find no concrete examples of provable discrimination based on sex, just the assumption that because their is a disparity it is automatically because of sexism, a sexist assumption in and of itself.
https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/05/26/america-gender-pay-gap-myth/
I am not saying there are not individual instances of discrimination, but the idea that is a pervasive, systemic bias is ridiculous.
Quote from: jhkim;1114898In most jobs, there's no way to be gender blind in selection. There are some stand-ins for that, though. For example, this study tested identical resumes with "John" or "Jennifer" as the listed name for low-level academic jobs, and found significantly lower reviews and 13% less recommended pay for Jennifer.
https://gender.stanford.edu/news-publications/gender-news/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer
Quote from: shuddemell;1114941The field chosen, the hours worked, the time taken off are the primary factors that drive any disparity in pay. I can find no concrete examples of provable discrimination based on sex, just the assumption that because their is a disparity it is automatically because of sexism, a sexist assumption in and of itself.
So how the heck do you interpret the study I posted as anything other than discrimination? The exact same resume with "Jennifer" written on it instead of "John" is rated for 13% less pay?
Disputing the study is one thing - but you're talking as if it simply doesn't exist.
Quote from: jhkim;1114958So how the heck do you interpret the study I posted as anything other than discrimination? The exact same resume with "Jennifer" written on it instead of "John" is rated for 13% less pay?
Disputing the study is one thing - but you're talking as if it simply doesn't exist.
I'm skeptical of these kinds of studies in general. For example-
"Evidence" for the pay gap has been shown to be not what it was claiming.
We also have the much repeated "audition study" that has come into question.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/bulletin-board/new-research-pokes-holes-in-famous-study-on-gender-bias-in-orchestra-hiring/
And the idea of "Implicit bias" itself is questionable, by the people who did it.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/7/14637626/implicit-association-test-racism
So forgive me if I take these "studies" with a huge grain of salt.
Quote from: jhkim;1114898In most jobs, there's no way to be gender blind in selection. There are some stand-ins for that, though. For example, this study tested identical resumes with "John" or "Jennifer" as the listed name for low-level academic jobs, and found significantly lower reviews and 13% less recommended pay for Jennifer.
https://gender.stanford.edu/news-publications/gender-news/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer
Quote from: jhkimSo how the heck do you interpret the study I posted as anything other than discrimination? The exact same resume with "Jennifer" written on it instead of "John" is rated for 13% less pay?
Disputing the study is one thing - but you're talking as if it simply doesn't exist.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1114965I'm skeptical of these kinds of studies in general.
I am too. I stated clearly earlier that it's very difficult to clearly prove prejudice or lack of prejudice. It seems to me that I've been the one arguing for skepticism, while others were arguing against me that it's been very definitely proven that there's no prejudice against women.
Or is your point that skepticism should be based on the conclusion. i.e. A study that finds no evidence of prejudice against women should be immediately trusted, while a study that finds evidence of prejudice should be scrutinized and disbelieved?
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1114965We also have the much repeated "audition study" that has come into question.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/bulletin-board/new-research-pokes-holes-in-famous-study-on-gender-bias-in-orchestra-hiring/
In this case, I agree. In particular, that study has been misrepresented in the media -- when it's conclusions were limited for a weak statistical effect, whereas it was interpreted as clearly cause and effect (i.e. blind auditions caused more women to be hired). Still, the percentage of women in professional orchestras has sharply increased -- going from 10% or less to 30-40%. So even if that study hasn't proven the cause, it remains an open question - why have more women performers been hired? It's not like the possibility of prejudice against women has been ruled out.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1114965And the idea of "Implicit bias" itself is questionable, by the people who did it.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/7/14637626/implicit-association-test-racism
So forgive me if I take these "studies" with a huge grain of salt.
This is about a psychological association test about racism. I'd agree to be highly skeptical of such studies, though I don't see that it has any direct bearing on the gender wage gap. I don't put much stock in that sort of psychological testing in general either way.
Quote from: jhkim;1114969I am too. I stated clearly earlier that it's very difficult to clearly prove prejudice or lack of prejudice. It seems to me that I've been the one arguing for skepticism, while others were arguing against me that it's been very definitely proven that there's no prejudice against women.
>
Quote from: jhkim;1114958So how the heck do you interpret the study I posted as anything other than discrimination? The exact same resume with "Jennifer" written on it instead of "John" is rated for 13% less pay?
.
>
Quote from: jhkim;1114898It's hard to generalize across these. However, it is simply false to say that there is no evidence of discrimination. You can dispute about how to generalize these, but the studies exist.
QuoteOr is your point that skepticism should be based on the conclusion. i.e. A study that finds no evidence of prejudice against women should be immediately trusted, while a study that finds evidence of prejudice should be scrutinized and disbelieved?
There has been enough error, bias and misrepresentaion to make me skeptical of studies that show sexism.
Regarding studies that find no evidence (are they even out there?) I wouldn't say "immediately trusted". One should be extra skeptical of information that confirms their ideas, since confirmation bias is a thing.
QuoteThis is about a psychological association test about racism. I'd agree to be highly skeptical of such studies, though I don't see that it has any direct bearing on the gender wage gap. I don't put much stock in that sort of psychological testing in general either way.
I offer it as a general example that bias surveys seem to have serious problems that come to light when they are questioned by people with more expertise in surveys and studies than a bunch of yahoos on a message board.
Quote from: jhkim;1114969Still, the percentage of women in professional orchestras has sharply increased -- going from 10% or less to 30-40%.
I used to game with a professional cellist and he used to say stagnating salaries in orchestras were causing men to abandon the profession. When he added his practice time to his performing time and divided the pay, he was barely making minimum wage, often less when he included travel time.
All of my experience with non-professional Orchestras heavily skewed towards females, especially the strings.
I am saying it isn't systemic as a whole, primarily because the sample size is way too small to generalize this over a whole industry or nation. As I said before, there is individual discrimination but to believe this implies the whole system is rigged against women is a stretch. In addition, there is no detail of methodology and as there is no indication that there were salary corrections for which institution got male or female to review, it seems awfully suspect or at the very least incomplete to draw any real conclusion of discrimination based on sex. Typically, gender studies methodologies are highly suspect and biased to begin with, so my skepticism that this is even valid is quite high.
Quote from: Shasarak;1115013All of my experience with non-professional Orchestras heavily skewed towards females, especially the strings.
You're doing it wrong. Women are always oppressed. So, what you do is, look for a musical instrument for which there are more men, and then whine and complain about that.
Quote from: shuddemell;1115023As I said before, there is individual discrimination but to believe this implies the whole system is rigged against women is a stretch.
You don't get it. Women are desperate to live their true selves as plumbers, roofers, brick layers and auto mechanics, but 24/7 misogyny from people like you won't allow them to achieve these dream jobs!
You should be ashamed! :D
Quote from: Spinachcat;1115114You don't get it. Women are desperate to live their true selves as plumbers, roofers, brick layers and auto mechanics, but 24/7 misogyny from people like you won't allow them to achieve these dream jobs!
You should be ashamed! :D
[video]https://imgur.com/kJzOeHR[/youtube]
Dear god, if fart rape was a thing, you'd all be my prison bitch after a good bowl of rice and beans. :eek: I am the 5th gas giant of the Solar system. :p
This sort of commercial has become so rare that it felt remarkably fresh (with a bit humor of course :D ):
https://player.vimeo.com/video/296912070
Quote from: Trond;1116156This sort of commercial has become so rare that it felt remarkably fresh (with a bit humor of course :D ):
https://player.vimeo.com/video/296912070
That would be banned in the UK
Quote from: Gagarth;1116189That would be banned in the UK
Maybe it's a sign of the times that I have no clue if you're joking or not.
Quote from: Trond;1116194Maybe it's a sign of the times that I have no clue if you're joking or not.
All the wait staff are women and are dressed in skimpy tight clothing. The Advertising Standards Authority would class this as stereotyping and objectification. They would probably have an issue with men being told to be manly as well.
I find "boobs & sports" bars like Hooters (and this Twin Peaks) to be mostly cringey, but I didn't like strip clubs even when I was single. Not because I was offended, but because I don't pay for sex so I really don't get paying for titillation that goes nowhere and expects a big tip.
But I did enjoy the part of the commercial where the host futilely explains that the TV referees can't actually hear you complain about their bad calls. That's one fact that eternally passes the Man Brain.
Thought this would be of interest to the thread:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-says-women-indisputably-better-than-men-2019-12-16
https://www.axios.com/barack-obama-women-better-leaders-men-7e2c0237-4a6e-4a4b-93ff-5a707ad304cc.html
Quote from: CarlD.;1116680Thought this would be of interest to the thread:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-says-women-indisputably-better-than-men-2019-12-16
https://www.axios.com/barack-obama-women-better-leaders-men-7e2c0237-4a6e-4a4b-93ff-5a707ad304cc.html
In this I can only offer personal anecdotes: my wife and I have worked under various bosses in our lives, and I'd say that slightly more than 50% were women. By far the two worst bosses were women, no contest. One of them brought several workers to nervous breakdowns, and she's supposed to be the "woke" and progressive one.
Quote from: CarlD.;1116680Thought this would be of interest to the thread:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-says-women-indisputably-better-than-men-2019-12-16
https://www.axios.com/barack-obama-women-better-leaders-men-7e2c0237-4a6e-4a4b-93ff-5a707ad304cc.html
Some dudes will spew the most mindless mental diahrreha trying to put women up on pedestals.
Quote from: CarlD.;1116680Thought this would be of interest to the thread:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-says-women-indisputably-better-than-men-2019-12-16
https://www.axios.com/barack-obama-women-better-leaders-men-7e2c0237-4a6e-4a4b-93ff-5a707ad304cc.html
I wonder how much the speaking fee was for those private meetings he was at?
They could have saved some money by getting Michelle to speak instead.
Quote from: Trond;1116690In this I can only offer personal anecdotes: my wife and I have worked under various bosses in our lives, and I'd say that slightly more than 50% were women. By far the two worst bosses were women, no contest. One of them brought several workers to nervous breakdowns, and she's supposed to be the "woke" and progressive one.
I've had some crappy bosses, men and women. Its been roughly equal. A friend of mine had a female boss that drove several employees to nervous fits, one to a stress induced stroke that left her blind. It has been... telling I guess is the closest term how so far no one has said anything about equality against Obama's statements, either taxing this straight misogynistic stance or a 'feminist' well, someone finally said it stance.
The latter does seem to fit the loudest narrative in our times. Women are oppressed flawless super heroines that would save the world is men would just take our foot off their throats. I suspect it will blow over as almost everything does, but I wonder what effect it will have boys, and girls that grow up in this era and culture as a whole. From what I've read boys are falling behind scholastically as it stands due to the shift in focus.
For that matter, I remember years ago boys answering a survey about what happens when girls challenge boys with girls always win as its what they saw in fiction and media. And things like a women's college that was going to start admitting men which triggered protests and despair among the student body that was basically lauded when, if it had been gender flipped, it would have been a bunch of sexist (or Misogynistic as that has subsumed sexist) assholes scared of women for no reason.
Quote from: Shasarak;1116698I wonder how much the speaking fee was for those private meetings he was at?
They could have saved some money by getting Michelle to speak instead.
She is probably to busy getting hate crime fakers off the hook.
Son the Year of the Woman comes to a close. Any last moment commentary?
Quote from: CarlD.;1117828Son the Year of the Woman comes to a close. Any last moment commentary?
Typo is amusing. That's all the commentary I have.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1117831Typo is amusing. That's all the commentary I have.
Yeah, I left out the comma. Blows my Foghorn Leghorn impression all to Hell. :D
I thought this might strike some people on this thread as, well typical of the site.
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/mighty_wombat-has-accumulated-50001-warning-points-on-january-15-2020.857668/
The "You didn't quit WE fired you!" nature of it all is hilariously pathetic.
"Mighty_Wombat has accumulated 50001 warning points on January 15, 2020"
50,001 warning points! What a bunch of idiot children.
If your moderation involves "warning points" over 10, you're running an asylum.
But I gotta ask, HOW can anyone argue that men aren't biologically stronger than women? It's a basic fact of human biology that's driven much of how our species has operated since day one.
Oh wait, is this some new transvestite nonsense? Or woke bullshit of another flavor?
Quote from: Spinachcat;1119697"Mighty_Wombat has accumulated 50001 warning points on January 15, 2020"
50,001 warning points! What a bunch of idiot children.
If your moderation involves "warning points" over 10, you're running an asylum.
But I gotta ask, HOW can anyone argue that men aren't biologically stronger than women? It's a basic fact of human biology that's driven much of how our species has operated since day one.
Oh wait, is this some new transvestite nonsense? Or woke bullshit of another flavor?
Greetings!
Ahh, my friend. Yes, would you believe that I had a PH.D Professor, a woman, tell me to my face in front of a whole class of some 45 other girls and 5 guys, in college, that I was wrong. Men are NOT stronger than women! Women can be just as strong as men! I was brainwashed by the "Patriarchy."
True story. University Women's Studies class. Women are just as strong and capable as men in every way. If you do not agree with that, you have been brainwashed by the hateful, misogynist Patriarchy.
I laughed. If I took what was held as "the truth" in my Women's Studies class, and presented that as an argument in any other class on campus, like Biology, History, Political Science, et. al, I would have been laughed at and given an *F*.
But somehow, in Women's Studies class, it was a special twilight zone where reality did not apply. History, science, all other knowledge was suspect and tainted, and in whatever way wrong. You must realize the deeper truth. And yeah, if you didn't get that figured out, guess what kind of grade you got in Women's Studies? I was lucky to get fucked with a *C* for my stubborn rebellion. Enough to fuck me from my work, but enough to neatly avoid any admin trial. Conservative professors explained to me that this is how brainwashed liberal professors fuck conservative students. You just have to make up the GPA fucking in some other class. And Liberals wonder why we despise them.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Dude, you took a Women's Studies class. WTF did you think was going to happen? Which jarhead told you Women's Studies was debating whether Bridgette Bardot was hotter than Linda Carter or who wore the Catwoman suit the best??? :)
While I'm very happy to discuss how personal strength, aka willpower isn't determined by biology, yet historically expressed in different ways by both genders, I'm just gonna laugh hysterically at the idea basic biology doesn't exist because feelings.
I'm so happy I don't work in any environment where this PC bullshit can touch me.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1119702Dude, you took a Women's Studies class. WTF did you think was going to happen? Which jarhead told you Women's Studies was debating whether Bridgette Bardot was hotter than Linda Carter or who wore the Catwoman suit the best??? :)
While I'm very happy to discuss how personal strength, aka willpower isn't determined by biology, yet historically expressed in different ways by both genders, I'm just gonna laugh hysterically at the idea basic biology doesn't exist because feelings.
I'm so happy I don't work in any environment where this PC bullshit can touch me.
Greetings!
*Laughing* Yeah, well, it was yet another Liberal mandated requirement that every History Major take two courses in Women's Studies and Minority Studies. (Multicultural, Chicano, African American, what the fuck studies.) Since I am a historian of ancient and medieval history, I wanted to hurry up and focus on something important and meaningful, and actually relevant to my studies, so I just took two basic Women's Studies classes to get them out of the way. Here I was, a Senior at the time, surrounded by a bunch of stupid fucking girls. This stupid fucking professor chick. But, like I said, I knew from my mentors that those two classes were going to be a wash. They told me just accept that no matter how good your work is in there, you are only going to get "C's" because she is a Liberal Feminist, and you are conservative. And a veteran Marine to boot. *laughs* And, they were right. All my grades in those two classes were "C's" even though in all other classes I was getting A's and B's.
I also learned their ideas of scholarship. It's laughable. I saw how ideologically driven and blind they are. I really saw how intellectually bankrupt and fraudulent Liberalism is. They absolutely dominate facts, truth, and reality to conform to their fucking ideology. It's sickening. The professor's spoon feeding this shit in, and all these 18, 19 year old girls smiling, mouths open wide, gulping it down.
The Patriarchy. Men are evil. White men are evil. Christians are the problem. The military is evil. America is wrong, imperialist, and greedy. And an evil, misogynistic patriarchy. Gays are wonderful, Hispanics and blacks are beautiful and gorgeous, and the true icons of goodness, sexuality, and beauty. White people have no worthwhile culture, and are the problem. White, Christian America must be resisted, and we must rise to power. Abortion is good, and a right, and women should have all freedom to have as much sex as they want, with whoever they want. Traditional families were patriarchal, and dysfunctional. Minorities, women, and gays would create a new, freer society that wasn't based on white people, Christianity, Capitalism, Patriarchy, and greed.
That's what I learned essentially in those classes.
Look where we are at today. *Laughs*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
And here I am busting my ass to get this PhD in CS by having to actually produce something concrete when all I'd have to do is parrot nonsense for a couple years and graduate with honors in Women's Studies. I picked the wrong career path!
Quote from: Brad;1119716And here I am busting my ass to get this PhD in CS by having to actually produce something concrete when all I'd have to do is parrot nonsense for a couple years and graduate with honors in Women's Studies. I picked the wrong career path!
Greetings!
*Laughing* Yeah, that's right. I had to of course review other people's work, do collaborative group stuff, and so on. In an academic sense, it is very subtle. They of course expect citations, sources, all that. So it has the form and sheen of respectability. But here is where the knife comes in. If your sources don't line up with the Liberal, feminist, SJW dogma, guess what? This, that, and the other thing is found lacking in your "sources." Then, of course, predictably, if your main argument and subsequent conclusion doesn't affirm, celebrate, and embrace Liberalism and SJW's, the whole fucking ideology, your grade on the paper is fucked, and your grade in such a class is fucked. If you are tight, hard working, and on top of shit, you will likely get tagged with nothing higher than a "C" that way you can't really complain, and nothing will be done to discipline the professor. If you are less than that, well, you get smoked with an "F".
Professors have vast power to enforce and encourage you to embrace their ideology, and get with the program. I also had a few Liberal Feminist History professors as well that I had to play games with. A fellow conservative student used to laugh with me afterwards at lunch, and tell me, "Yeah, bro. I know she's full of shit. I know the whole ideology they push is fucking bullshit. Get your "A's" in other classes, make up for it, do the stupid work that she wants, give her the syrup she is so desperate to hear, get your C or maybe a low B grade from her, and move the fuck on."
I did exactly that. I always found it refreshing when in my other classes, led by more conservative professors, the academic environment was far more rigorous, demanding, and genuinely open, and full of encouraging and teaching towards the students to embrace critical thinking, true learning, and creating solid, strong work. Those professors I have always cherished.
I always laugh at "Women's Studies" majors. It's a sad, pathetic fraud. But those same ideologically-driven requirements and propaganda are flooding into other disciplines as well, like English, Philosophy, Political Science, History, and of course Sociology and Psychology.
And now, yeah, there is even SJW science, business, math, and biology courses. They are coming for those fields as well. I have read that they think biology is unfair, and patriarchal, and there needs to be "Feminist Biology", "Non-White Math" "Gender Fluid Business" or whatever the fuck. It is so sad to see what these fucking SJW's seek to actually do with education and academics. Mind boggling, my friend.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK;1119708Greetings!
*Laughing* Yeah, well, it was yet another Liberal mandated requirement that every History Major take two courses in Women's Studies and Minority Studies. (Multicultural, Chicano, African American, what the fuck studies.) Since I am a historian of ancient and medieval history, I wanted to hurry up and focus on something important and meaningful, and actually relevant to my studies, so I just took two basic Women's Studies classes to get them out of the way. Here I was, a Senior at the time, surrounded by a bunch of stupid fucking girls. This stupid fucking professor chick. But, like I said, I knew from my mentors that those two classes were going to be a wash. They told me just accept that no matter how good your work is in there, you are only going to get "C's" because she is a Liberal Feminist, and you are conservative. And a veteran Marine to boot. *laughs* And, they were right. All my grades in those two classes were "C's" even though in all other classes I was getting A's and B's.
I also learned their ideas of scholarship. It's laughable. I saw how ideologically driven and blind they are. I really saw how intellectually bankrupt and fraudulent Liberalism is. They absolutely dominate facts, truth, and reality to conform to their fucking ideology. It's sickening. The professor's spoon feeding this shit in, and all these 18, 19 year old girls smiling, mouths open wide, gulping it down.
The Patriarchy. Men are evil. White men are evil. Christians are the problem. The military is evil. America is wrong, imperialist, and greedy. And an evil, misogynistic patriarchy. Gays are wonderful, Hispanics and blacks are beautiful and gorgeous, and the true icons of goodness, sexuality, and beauty. White people have no worthwhile culture, and are the problem. White, Christian America must be resisted, and we must rise to power. Abortion is good, and a right, and women should have all freedom to have as much sex as they want, with whoever they want. Traditional families were patriarchal, and dysfunctional. Minorities, women, and gays would create a new, freer society that wasn't based on white people, Christianity, Capitalism, Patriarchy, and greed.
That's what I learned essentially in those classes.
Look where we are at today. *Laughs*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Did you have textbook for that? I would like to check it out, just for the shock value. :D
Thankfully my PhD is in biology so didn't have to go through any of that, but I have noticed a lot of students suddenly talking about "gender" fuzziness when they should talk about biological sex.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1119697"Mighty_Wombat has accumulated 50001 warning points on January 15, 2020"
50,001 warning points! What a bunch of idiot children.
If your moderation involves "warning points" over 10, you're running an asylum.
But I gotta ask, HOW can anyone argue that men aren't biologically stronger than women? It's a basic fact of human biology that's driven much of how our species has operated since day one.
Oh wait, is this some new transvestite nonsense? Or woke bullshit of another flavor?
It might be related to Trans issues or it might be related to how it makes (some, I think largely imaginary) women feel bad that there are biological differences betwween men and women, some of which favor one over the other. *shugs* Who can tell with these guys.
For the amusing thing is the bad break up aspect of the banning. "You did dump me, I dumped you!" crap over this
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/goodbye-everyone-this-forum-is-not-for-me-sad-trombone.857665/
These guys really need to grow up or more, start treating the members there like adults not like the bratty kids they're supposed to nanny or more so like inmates in the asylum they themselves were recenty relased from due to a paperwork error. Check out this attempt to explain their 'tude.
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/bans-appeals-etc.858152/
OTOH, the most vocal members seem to have bought into the mods desired image as dedicated protectors against the outside world so be it, I guess.
Quote from: Trond;1119740Did you have textbook for that? I would like to check it out, just for the shock value. :D
Thankfully my PhD is in biology so didn't have to go through any of that, but I have noticed a lot of students suddenly talking about "gender" fuzziness when they should talk about biological sex.
Greetings!
Hello Trond! I *might* have some textbooks for it stashed away somewhere. I'm doubting it though. I kept the textbooks from classes I really enjoyed and learned stuff from. Other classes, well, I sold that nonsense back to the university bookstore, for a pittance. You know, pay $80.00 or $100.00 for a particular textbook, and the university bookstore buys the book back from you for $15.00. *Laughs* Too bad though. But, as I recall well, regardless of what is specifically written within the textbooks, the large majority and extensiveness of the professor's propaganda is pursued through lectures and discussions. Day after day, with sweeping emotionalism for added effect, pointed, smug questions aimed at getting young students to purposely view the Church, their parents, and America with suspicion, skepticism, and rage. The professor's go on and on about how oppressed you are, how you have been lied to and brainwashed by your parents, by the Church, or by the government. Over and over, about how awful Christianity is, how old fashioned and controlling and conservative your parents are, and how evil, greedy, and patriarchal the government at large is.
And the students, the majority of which are young girls, become enraged, and simmering with rebellion. They chitter and scheme about how they can fuck, how they can get abortions, how they can protest, rebel, and embarrass their parents and society as a whole. They yak about how they can change their identity, how they dress, hack their hair off, get tattoos, and on and on. All of which is eagerly encouraged and applauded by the professors.
*sigh* Yeah, I endured two Women's Studies classes in order to satisfy university program requirements. It was marginally enjoyable for me, only in the sense that I enjoyed debating insane, brainwashed morons that are being specifically taught by Liberal professors to hate science, hate facts and rational argument, and hate Truth. It's like all of these people are in some twisted episode of the Twilight Zone. *Laughs* They even tell you--all of your other classes in history, biology, political science, English, everything--they are all wrong. They are all patriarchal, evil, and corrupt. They are all lying to you, and seeking to deceive you, unless you know for certain they are SJW's, then they can be trusted. Otherwise, they are all evil, corrupt, and brainwashed. SJW's, Feminism, and Women's Studies are the source of truth and goodness.
Mind boggling that they believe this nonsense, but they do. And we wonder why years later, now, our country seems to be fucking insane and brimming over with absolute hordes of zombie-like masses of people, most of which are younger, and ostensibly college educated, that scream this moronic ideology. They have been steadily brainwashed and fed this stuff since grade-school, all through high school, and especially into college.
Crazy stuff, my friend!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Spinachcat;1119697But I gotta ask, HOW can anyone argue that men aren't biologically stronger than women? It's a basic fact of human biology that's driven much of how our species has operated since day one.
Oh wait, is this some new transvestite nonsense? Or woke bullshit of another flavor?
Did you notice that even Michelle Wolf, herself a rather obnoxious feminist, has finally understood that some radical feminists are this much batshit crazy? She joked that although she's a feminist, she knows that men are stronger than women, because she's not an idiot. And she also noted that some feminists DO admit that they hate all men. Most men were of course not surprised. That's......something I suppose. Baby steps.
Oooh boy, now they're fighting the patriarchy even in astrology.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/meet-the-woman-bringing-social-justice-to-astrology?utm_source=pocket-newtab
I find this funny! :D First off; whenever someone asks me what sign I am, it is ALWAYS a woman. A guy being interested in this has literally never happened to me (yes, I'm sure they are out there).
Secondly, some of the quotes are hilarious:
QuoteFollowing the 2016 presidential election, the AstroTwins, Ophira and Tali Edut, wrote a piece suggesting that the outcome of the vote could be attributed to the fact that the month before "aggressive Mars and powermonger Pluto were both in Capricorn, the sign that rules the patriarchy."
Quoteshe has no qualms about expressing her point of view in her horoscopes. "I'm not neutral about the things that happen that I find to be unjust," Nicholas says. "Maybe that makes me not the best astrologer, but if you want that, then you have to go to someone else."
No, it's not a hilarious spoof article, it's Rolling Stone! :)
Quote from: Trond;1120097Oooh boy, now they're fighting the patriarchy even in astrology.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/meet-the-woman-bringing-social-justice-to-astrology?utm_source=pocket-newtab
I find this funny! :D First off; whenever someone asks me what sign I am, it is ALWAYS a woman. A guy being interested in this has literally never happened to me (yes, I'm sure they are out there).
Secondly, some of the quotes are hilarious:
No, it's not a hilarious spoof article, it's Rolling Stone! :)
So she's acknowledging that not striving to be objective (even in horseshit like astrology) leads to getting erroneous results, but that's okay because PATRIARCHY!
Is there a word insane people would use for someone they found insane?
Quote from: SHARK;1120040Yeah, I endured two Women's Studies classes in order to satisfy university program requirements. It was marginally enjoyable for me, only in the sense that I enjoyed debating insane, brainwashed morons that are being specifically taught by Liberal professors to hate science, hate facts and rational argument, and hate Truth. It's like all of these people are in some twisted episode of the Twilight Zone. *Laughs* They even tell you--all of your other classes in history, biology, political science, English, everything--they are all wrong. They are all patriarchal, evil, and corrupt. They are all lying to you, and seeking to deceive you, unless you know for certain they are SJW's, then they can be trusted. Otherwise, they are all evil, corrupt, and brainwashed.
Sadly, all too often people reject science unless it agrees with their politics -- saying that the scientists are lying, evil, corrupt, and/or brainwashed. This is becoming an increasingly common response in today's partisan environment, fueled by social media.
Narrowly-targeted partisan media has become increasingly skilled at getting people outraged over the lies of the other side.
Quote from: CarlD.;1120033Check out this attempt to explain their 'tude.
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/bans-appeals-etc.858152/
This was my favorite quote!
This is a volunteer job. Well, "job". We don't get paid to moderate the forums. We do it because we want this community to be welcoming to the kind of people the internet is not usually welcoming to.All the major social media outlets are ruled by SJW nonsense, but these clowns think they are some bastion of protection. Perhaps they are. As SJWs become increasingly freakish, the most outrageous freaks become too insane for even the TDS crowd and need increasingly "safer" spaces, thus explaining RPG.net's trajectory.
I surely hope some psychologists are quietly studying RPG.net. It would probably be a fascinating case study in human communication, mental illness and online engagement.
Quote from: jhkim;1120200Sadly, all too often people reject science unless it agrees with their politics -- saying that the scientists are lying, evil, corrupt, and/or brainwashed.
OUCH! Wrong day for that quote!
Here's NPR discussing the arrest of a lying, evil, corrupt (and perhaps brainwashed) scientist who was the chair of Harvard's Chemistry & BioChem department.
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/28/800442646/acclaimed-harvard-scientist-is-arrested-accused-of-lying-about-ties-to-china
It's going to take years to even understand the damage this one traitor has done. Scientist traitor. Harvard traitor.
There is ZERO innate morality in scientists. There should be in theory and its certainly a media myth, but its just a profession. As with every other profession, there will be good and bad scientists, moral and immoral, honorable and traitor. But when a scientist is a scumbag, he's just a scumbag with more degrees and maybe more IQ points than his fellow scumbags.
But considering Harvard's alumni, "Harvard traitor" might be an oxymoron!
My favorite part is this traitor was involved in setting up a nanoscience lab in Wuhan, China! Yes, the same Wuhan China which is ground zero for the coronavirus currently spreading like wildfire! Coincidence? Conspiracy Theory?
My bet? We'll never hear the depth of this story.
PS: I'm not bagging on you jhkim because you're a scientist. Every time I hear about a teacher molesting a child, I still go WTF!!! regardless of how jaded I am because deep down, even I still want to believe "teachers = good" when I know that's nonsense. Teachers are people and Slipknot continues to be right about people (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbhuLGETFGc).
Quote from: SHARKYeah, I endured two Women's Studies classes in order to satisfy university program requirements. It was marginally enjoyable for me, only in the sense that I enjoyed debating insane, brainwashed morons that are being specifically taught by Liberal professors to hate science, hate facts and rational argument, and hate Truth.
Quote from: jhkimSadly, all too often people reject science unless it agrees with their politics -- saying that the scientists are lying, evil, corrupt, and/or brainwashed.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1120227There is ZERO innate morality in scientists. There should be in theory and its certainly a media myth, but its just a profession. As with every other profession, there will be good and bad scientists, moral and immoral, honorable and traitor. But when a scientist is a scumbag, he's just a scumbag with more degrees and maybe more IQ points than his fellow scumbags.
One doesn't have to believe that scientists are inherently better than average people to believe that science works. Just like one doesn't have to believe that capitalists are inherently more moral to believe that capitalism works. The success of science is based on the methodology and the transparency in the institutions, not on individual scientists being inherently more moral.
While the accusations against Professor Lieber casts doubt on the morality of individual scientists, the reason *why* the Chinese are so interested in acquiring scientific secrets is precisely because
science works. Science as a whole is effective and valuable. You don't hear about the Chinese trying to steal secrets from Women's Studies departments.
Quote from: jhkim;1120259You don't hear about the Chinese trying to steal secrets from Women's Studies departments.
The only secret Women's Studies departments have is that they are all run by Chinese and Russian agents.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1120227OUCH! Wrong day for that quote!
Here's NPR discussing the arrest of a lying, evil, corrupt (and perhaps brainwashed) scientist who was the chair of Harvard's Chemistry & BioChem department.
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/28/800442646/acclaimed-harvard-scientist-is-arrested-accused-of-lying-about-ties-to-china
It's going to take years to even understand the damage this one traitor has done. Scientist traitor. Harvard traitor.
There is ZERO innate morality in scientists. There should be in theory and its certainly a media myth, but its just a profession. As with every other profession, there will be good and bad scientists, moral and immoral, honorable and traitor. But when a scientist is a scumbag, he's just a scumbag with more degrees and maybe more IQ points than his fellow scumbags.
But considering Harvard's alumni, "Harvard traitor" might be an oxymoron!
My favorite part is this traitor was involved in setting up a nanoscience lab in Wuhan, China! Yes, the same Wuhan China which is ground zero for the coronavirus currently spreading like wildfire! Coincidence? Conspiracy Theory?
My bet? We'll never hear the depth of this story.
PS: I'm not bagging on you jhkim because you're a scientist. Every time I hear about a teacher molesting a child, I still go WTF!!! regardless of how jaded I am because deep down, even I still want to believe "teachers = good" when I know that's nonsense. Teachers are people and Slipknot continues to be right about people (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbhuLGETFGc).
I was thinking about this exact thing when I read his post yesterday...it's amazing to me how people in academia refuse to believe that education as a whole has been infiltrated by outside influence, be it communists, crony capitalism, or outright criminal endeavors. For every ethical scientist, there are probably one or two on the dole from some nefarious influence.
Quote from: Brad;1120284I was thinking about this exact thing when I read his post yesterday...it's amazing to me how people in academia refuse to believe that education as a whole has been infiltrated by outside influence, be it communists, crony capitalism, or outright criminal endeavors. For every ethical scientist, there are probably one or two on the dole from some nefarious influence.
I'm sure there are paid stooges, but I doubt there are many. For China, I think it's more taking advantage of naked naivete. The one or two times someone has blatantly tried to smuggle vials of whatever out of the country get disproportionate attention, but the real threat is how readily most people in academia are willing to share. If a colleague asks for research details, the answer tends to default to yes. I'm not really sure how to address that, because what China's exploiting to steal patents and classified info is the very culture that's allowed science to flourish.
And from what I've heard, I don't think the FBI knows how to handle it, either.
Quote from: Pat;1120315I'm sure there are paid stooges, but I doubt there are many.
Define "stooge". Considering how low some of the people I know will stoop to get funding to push agendas, does it really matter if the "researcher" is doing it for ideological reasons or not?
Quote from: Brad;1120284I was thinking about this exact thing when I read his post yesterday...it's amazing to me how people in academia refuse to believe that education as a whole has been infiltrated by outside influence, be it communists, crony capitalism, or outright criminal endeavors. For every ethical scientist, there are probably one or two on the dole from some nefarious influence.
Quote from: Pat;1120315I'm sure there are paid stooges, but I doubt there are many. For China, I think it's more taking advantage of naked naivete. The one or two times someone has blatantly tried to smuggle vials of whatever out of the country get disproportionate attention, but the real threat is how readily most people in academia are willing to share. If a colleague asks for research details, the answer tends to default to yes. I'm not really sure how to address that, because what China's exploiting to steal patents and classified info is the very culture that's allowed science to flourish.
And from what I've heard, I don't think the FBI knows how to handle it, either.
Yeah, I'm not sure what Brad means by "on the dole from nefarious influences". For example, when I was a high-energy physicist, I worked in a big international collaboration with dozens of universities in twelve countries. We had a lot of different funding sources. How could I tell who was on the dole from nefarious influence? Was I on the dole from nefarious influence?
I'm not clear on what this practically looks like.
From my view, the traditional methods of science have an excellent track record. I think cigarettes are a good example. While the tobacco industry absolutely did hire some unscrupulous scientists to produce false research, they were not able to get any refutation published in traditional peer-reviewed journals. The overwhelming consensus of mainstream science was still that cigarettes cause cancer. So instead, the tobacco companies used interviews and fringe journals and hype to throw a smokescreen around the issue.
Quote from: Brad;1120329Define "stooge". Considering how low some of the people I know will stoop to get funding to push agendas, does it really matter if the "researcher" is doing it for ideological reasons or not?
Yes, because there's a difference between someone fully paid and bought, and more subtle influence. The FBI can be fairly effective at catching outright spies, but systemic changes not law enforcement are needed to deal with more subtle forms of bias.
Quote from: jhkim;1120336Yeah, I'm not sure what Brad means by "on the dole from nefarious influences". For example, when I was a high-energy physicist, I worked in a big international collaboration with dozens of universities in twelve countries. We had a lot of different funding sources. How could I tell who was on the dole from nefarious influence? Was I on the dole from nefarious influence?
You just proved my point...
Quote from: Pat;1120338Yes, because there's a difference between someone fully paid and bought, and more subtle influence. The FBI can be fairly effective at catching outright spies, but systemic changes not law enforcement are needed to deal with more subtle forms of bias.
That's not what I'm talking about, I am stating that there is this notion that academia is above such concerns, held by people in academia, and that's why they're easily duped and manipulated. It's not a difficult concept.
Quote from: Brad;1120339That's not what I'm talking about, I am stating that there is this notion that academia is above such concerns, held by people in academia, and that's why they're easily duped and manipulated. It's not a difficult concept.
And I specifically addressed outright stooges, and talked generally about sources of influence. It's not a difficult concept.
I saw this (https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/363/bmj.k5218.full.pdf?casa_token=MqW12VFePx0AAAAA:P3rZm5S7sHisCEHJs-OmFkvHEIRhvA8giG6KsQ-DnsrgWsTXfj6wCIXQ5-6m9U0LuHCUhh_gkQ)... and yeah
Quote from: jhkimYeah, I'm not sure what Brad means by "on the dole from nefarious influences". For example, when I was a high-energy physicist, I worked in a big international collaboration with dozens of universities in twelve countries. We had a lot of different funding sources. How could I tell who was on the dole from nefarious influence? Was I on the dole from nefarious influence?
Quote from: Brad;1120339You just proved my point...
That isn't very clear to me. Can you give examples and/or description about what a typical scientist who is under nefarious influence looks like? What is the influence and how does it change their work?
Quote from: Pat;1120340And I specifically addressed outright stooges, and talked generally about sources of influence. It's not a difficult concept.
If you're so full of yourself that you cannot contemplate the possibility that you might be subtly manipulated by external forces that have control over your purse strings, then you're a fucking stooge, regardless of your intent.
Is that clear enough?
Quote from: jhkim;1120342That isn't very clear to me. Can you give examples and/or description about what a typical scientist who is under nefarious influence looks like? What is the influence and how does it change their work?
There's a fucking link in this thread...stop pretending you're stupid.
Quote from: jhkimThat isn't very clear to me. Can you give examples and/or description about what a typical scientist who is under nefarious influence looks like? What is the influence and how does it change their work?
Quote from: Brad;1120344There's a fucking link in this thread...stop pretending you're stupid.
OK, so I see a link about Professor Charles Lieber, accused of illicitly participating in a training and recruitment program in China.
Is your claim that Lieber is typical of scientists? That more than half of all scientists illicitly take money from secret sources? If not, then what are you saying is the more common case of nefarious influence?
Quote from: Brad;1120344If you're so full of yourself that you cannot contemplate the possibility that you might be subtly manipulated by external forces that have control over your purse strings, then you're a fucking stooge, regardless of your intent.
Is that clear enough?
I explicitly mentioned bias and subtle influences in two different places, in one short post. For the record, I was alluding to sources of funding. If you doubt that, see my posts on political influence (cronyism) in other threads, which lay out the same concept.
This is a compete failure of reading comprehension on your part, and no one else's.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1120227OUCH! Wrong day for that quote!
Here's NPR discussing the arrest of a lying, evil, corrupt (and perhaps brainwashed) scientist who was the chair of Harvard's Chemistry & BioChem department.
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/28/800442646/acclaimed-harvard-scientist-is-arrested-accused-of-lying-about-ties-to-china
It's going to take years to even understand the damage this one traitor has done. Scientist traitor. Harvard traitor.
There is ZERO innate morality in scientists. There should be in theory and its certainly a media myth, but its just a profession. As with every other profession, there will be good and bad scientists, moral and immoral, honorable and traitor. But when a scientist is a scumbag, he's just a scumbag with more degrees and maybe more IQ points than his fellow scumbags.
Damn my confirmation bias is hitting really hard right now. :cool:
The problem as I see it with scientists is that most of them think that it is all about the science right up until they get whacked down by the real world.
Quote from: Shasarak;1120361Damn my confirmation bias is hitting really hard right now. :cool:
The problem as I see it with scientists is that most of them think that it is all about the science right up until they get whacked down by the real world.
I'm glad you're at least naming confirmation bias. I think it's a problem if the latest news story changes anyone's view of all reality. For example, when a liberal sees a news story about a policeman being racist and/or corrupt, say, then it feeds into their confirmation bias -- and they take it as proof that all policemen are that way.
But the latest news story isn't what the typical reality is. Indeed, popular news is often popular precisely because it goes against expectations.
Quote from: jhkim;1120555I'm glad you're at least naming confirmation bias. I think it's a problem if the latest news story changes anyone's view of all reality. For example, when a liberal sees a news story about a policeman being racist and/or corrupt, say, then it feeds into their confirmation bias -- and they take it as proof that all policemen are that way.
But the latest news story isn't what the typical reality is. Indeed, popular news is often popular precisely because it goes against expectations.
Greetings!
You know, Jhkim, that reminds me. I think a lot of the media and the racist, anti-white minority groups are just screeching for more attention, power, and nonsense. I'm pro law enforcement, and very skeptical towards whining, screeching "activists".
However, I do see more than a few cases where law enforcement officers shoot someone that is handcuffed, or beat a pregnant woman pulled over for a fucking traffic violation, or a good number of other cases, and it does make me wonder what the fuck is wrong with some of these law enforcement officers? Their actions often seem to be monstrously stupid and cruel, and in violation of their police training at the police academy in regards to the proper use of force, threat escalation, and alternative response strategies. It bothers me deeply that so many of these moron bastard police officers seem to think every problem, every altercation, every situation, seems to somehow demand that they use deadly force and shoot and kill someone. I don't think that's right. There are definitely problems in training and supervision and these topics that many departments need to review. There seems to be some fucking real problems to me here.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK;1120558However, I do see more than a few cases where law enforcement officers shoot someone that is handcuffed, or beat a pregnant woman pulled over for a fucking traffic violation, or a good number of other cases, and it does make me wonder what the fuck is wrong with some of these law enforcement officers? Their actions often seem to be monstrously stupid and cruel, and in violation of their police training at the police academy in regards to the proper use of force, threat escalation, and alternative response strategies. It bothers me deeply that so many of these moron bastard police officers seem to think every problem, every altercation, every situation, seems to somehow demand that they use deadly force and shoot and kill someone. I don't think that's right. There are definitely problems in training and supervision and these topics that many departments need to review. There seems to be some fucking real problems to me here.
There's one number people should always remember when a new school shooting pop up, someone mentions the number of a suicides in a year, or there's a black man shot by police, or any other event happens that makes the news:
329,327,160
(Or a little higher, by the time you read this.) (https://www.census.gov/popclock/)
There are lot of people in the country. Not just a lot, but a lot lot. That's a huge number. It's so big a number we simply can't grasp it. Humanity evolved in small social groups, maybe a hundred. That's how we're designed. We react to everything as if it were happening in our tiny, local tribe. But it's not. We live in a country where there are more than a hundred
hundred hundred hundred people.
Compared to that, one or two major news stories at a time get national coverage. Those events that make, by definition, aren't typical. What they are is the most dramatic, the most sensational, the most outrageous things that happen in that inconceivable pool of humanity.
We're emotionally and socially incapable of properly filtering the most extreme events across the equivalent of millions of tribes. And even if the news was curated with inhuman wisdom, restraint, and impartiality so what we watch illustrates deeper trends, it still wouldn't be representative.
The only method that we can conceivably use to get a handle on that enormity and extremity is to crunch the numbers. We need less empathy, and more statistics.
Quote from: Pat;1120593There's one number people should always remember when a new school shooting pop up, someone mentions the number of a suicides in a year, or there's a black man shot by police, or any other event happens that makes the news:
329,327,160
(Or a little higher, by the time you read this.) (https://www.census.gov/popclock/)
There are lot of people in the country. Not just a lot, but a lot lot. That's a huge number. It's so big a number we simply can't grasp it. Humanity evolved in small social groups, maybe a hundred. That's how we're designed. We react to everything as if it were happening in our tiny, local tribe. But it's not. We live in a country where there are a hundred hundred hundred hundred small tribes.
Compared to that, one or major news stories at a time get national coverage. Those events that make, by definition, aren't typical. What they are is the most dramatic, the most sensational, the most outrageous things that happen in that inconceivable pool of humanity.
We're emotionally and socially incapable of properly filtering the most extreme events across the equivalent of millions of tribes. And even if the news was curated with inhuman wisdom, restraint, and impartiality so what we watch illustrates deeper trends, it still wouldn't be representative.
The only method that we can conceivably use to get a handle on that enormity and extremity is to crunch the numbers. We need less empathy, and more statistics.
Greetings!
Excellent stuff, Pat. Yeah, it also bothers me that the fucking media purposely presents different "news events" in efforts to create and support a particular narrative. They also are assiduous in avoiding other topics that don't line up with their official narrative. A lot of it is ratings-chasing and sensationalism, too. Strangely, the media is far less interested in presenting news stories where it is minorities killing and raping each other, or...minorities doing the killing and raping of white people. It's always about the evil, oppressive white people. There's definitely an agenda going on. More statistics and less empathy! That's right.
Funny, though. Even in college, Liberal students and professors alike all seemed to hate statistics. They constantly bristled at me whenever I would bring up statistics that undermined their entire argument. They got really annoyed with me! I would constantly point to statistics, facts, and authoritative studies by the government, the FBI, and so on. They always accused me of lacking empathy, and being insensitive!:D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkim;1120555I'm glad you're at least naming confirmation bias. I think it's a problem if the latest news story changes anyone's view of all reality. For example, when a liberal sees a news story about a policeman being racist and/or corrupt, say, then it feeds into their confirmation bias -- and they take it as proof that all policemen are that way.
But the latest news story isn't what the typical reality is. Indeed, popular news is often popular precisely because it goes against expectations.
It is not only confirmation bias, did you know that smarter people are better able to explain away cognitive dissonance? I mean literally someone can see a story of a corrupt scientist taking millions in illegal kickbacks and if they have a high IQ they can immediately spin that story into an example of how great scientists are.
Quote from: Pat;1120593We need less empathy, and more statistics.
LOL. While you surely must be great fun at parties, you are also quite right!! :)
The Coronavirus hype is 2020's first case study in how you're right. Worldwide 60k annually die from the flu, so 5k per month or 164 per day. AKA, far beyond the Coronavirus and nobody blinks at the flu.
Quote from: jhkim;1120555I'm glad you're at least naming confirmation bias. I think it's a problem if the latest news story changes anyone's view of all reality. For example, when a liberal sees a news story about a policeman being racist and/or corrupt, say, then it feeds into their confirmation bias -- and they take it as proof that all policemen are that way.
How many times have you said this to your fellow lefties?
Quote from: Pat;1120353I explicitly mentioned bias and subtle influences in two different places, in one short post. For the record, I was alluding to sources of funding. If you doubt that, see my posts on political influence (cronyism) in other threads, which lay out the same concept.
This is a compete failure of reading comprehension on your part, and no one else's.
Or maybe I just think the question is loaded and doesn't expect a real answer.
Quote from: Pat;1120593Those events that make, by definition, aren't typical. What they are is the most dramatic, the most sensational, the most outrageous things that happen in that inconceivable pool of humanity.
I don't think the fact that 'outrageous things only affect a few people who probably aren't me' as a convincing reason that we should not try to arrange a society where those things don't happen.
How many people getting shot by police accidentally is acceptable?
Should we live in a society where police are not responsible (https://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2467-6-things-i-learned-when-cops-raided-my-house-by-mistake.html) for the damage they deal (https://www.cracked.com/article_18620_6-completely-legal-ways-cops-can-screw-you.html) to innocent people (https://www.cracked.com/article_21123_5-terrifying-ways-police-can-legally-screw-you-over.html)
Quote from: Pat;1120593We need less empathy, and more statistics.
Nonsense. We need more of both since we are trying to connect people to their reality. Dropping 'bricks' of hard facts without understanding how others will incorporate those pieces into the 'structures' of their worldview can be destructive.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1120698I don't think the fact that 'outrageous things only affect a few people who probably aren't me' as a convincing reason that we should not try to arrange a society where those things don't happen.
How many people getting shot by police accidentally is acceptable?
Should we live in a society where police are not responsible (https://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2467-6-things-i-learned-when-cops-raided-my-house-by-mistake.html) for the damage they deal (https://www.cracked.com/article_18620_6-completely-legal-ways-cops-can-screw-you.html) to innocent people (https://www.cracked.com/article_21123_5-terrifying-ways-police-can-legally-screw-you-over.html)
Thanks, that's a perfect example of the kind of misapplied empathy that becomes so destructive.
Let's start with "we should not try to arrange a society where those things don't happen". For those following the conversation, these are the sensational, terrible things that make the national news, from mass shootings to cops killing kids. Except let's step back for a minute, and apply reason to the immediate empathic response. We're wired to treat the needs of other people as our own needs, but that developed when our social group rarely exceeded 100 people. When our lives were tightly integrated into the lives of those 100 people, and they reciprocated that treatment. But when there's breaking news, we're not talking about 100 people; in the US alone we're talking
3 million times a 100 people. And the relationship is entirely one way; we may know every detail about Treyvon Martin or Kim Kardashian's lives, but they never knew us.
Recognizing that doesn't mean we don't care, but it does mean that our empathic reflexes are wrong. For instance, look at your statement that some bad thing should never happen. What does that mean in a social group of 100? We can never stamp out bad things, so it doesn't mean they're truly erased. But in that small group we might be able to reduce their frequency to once a year, or once a generation, or once every several generations. And once something passes from a living memory into a cautionary myth, we can say it never happens.
But 300 million people is equivalent to the living memory of 3 million generations of that small tribe. We can make things so rare that, if we still lived in those tribes, any incidents would vanish into the fog of legend, or be forgotten entirely. But when dealing with the immense number of people alive today, that will rarely be an achievable goal. So what does it mean when you say some specific bad thing should never happen, in that inconceivably larger society? It's a a categorical statement, brooking no compromise, so it means anything that reduces the frequency must be an overriding imperative, and that we should sacrifice any freedom, any amount of money, to make it happen. Install cameras in every room of every house and have them continually monitored by police, increase taxes to 90% of the national budget, whatever.
And that's where the emotional wiring humanity developed in small tribes misfires. Because we have limited resources, and a limited capacity to solve different problems, so there are always trade offs. "Give me liberty, or give me death" may be an extreme example, but we make the same kind of decisions everyday. Do you buy your dream house cheap, if it's in a neighborhood with a high crime rate? Do you spend $1 billion on fighting cancer, or some disease that's easier to cure but affects far fewer people? Do you spend money on the internet scare of the moment, or do you spend it instead on any of the things that are statistically far more common and easier to fix?
And that's the kind of reason we need to apply, because our empathy is completely, utterly incapable of making the distinction between a risk of 1 in 10,000, and a risk of 1 in 100,000, and those fine (or gross) differences matter. They matter a
lot. They matter so much, that I can't emphasize it enough. Because it's the smart decisions that have made our lives drastically safer than those of our ancestors. And the bad decisions throw all that way, in favor of the absolutes demanded by misguided empathy.
But that means we need to crunch the numbers, and see where we can make the greatest impact. We need to recognize our limitations, and realize there are some things we can't solve, or that the solutions are too expensive, given everything else we could spend those resources on. We need to look past the immediate reaction, and put event in context. We need to resist the urge to "do something", and use history and theory to find real solutions instead of palliatives. We need to look past the intent of any programs, and figure out the real consequences. We need to stop the "think about the children!" mentality, because it's always focused on the children on the screen or in the clickbait, and ignores all the other children we can help, but who never go viral. We have to, even if implicitly, put a dollar value on human life, our various freedoms, and the many good things that make life worth living, and then weigh them and decided what balance we prefer; or when we make collective decisions, what we can accept or achieve.
Quote from: Pat;1120757Thanks, that's a perfect example of the kind of misapplied empathy that becomes so destructive.
Let's start with "we should not try to arrange a society where those things don't happen". For those following the conversation, these are the sensational, terrible things that make the national news, from mass shootings to cops killing kids. Except let's step back for a minute, and apply reason to the immediate empathic response. We're wired to treat the needs of other people as our own needs, but that developed when our social group rarely exceeded 100 people. When our lives were tightly integrated into the lives of those 100 people, and they reciprocated that treatment. But when there's breaking news, we're not talking about 100 people; in the US alone we're talking 3 million times a 100 people. And the relationship is entirely one way; we may know every detail about Treyvon Martin or Kim Kardashian's lives, but they never knew us.
Recognizing that doesn't mean we don't care, but it does mean that our empathic reflexes are wrong. For instance, look at your statement that some bad thing should never happen. What does that mean in a social group of 100? We can never stamp out bad things, so it doesn't mean they're truly erased. But in that small group we might be able to reduce their frequency to once a year, or once a generation, or once every several generations. And once something passes from a living memory into a cautionary myth, we can say it never happens.
But 300 million people is equivalent to the living memory of 3 million generations of that small tribe. We can make things so rare that, if we still lived in those tribes, any incidents would vanish into the fog of legend, or be forgotten entirely. But when dealing with the immense number of people alive today, that will rarely be an achievable goal. So what does it mean when you say some specific bad thing should never happen, in that inconceivably larger society? It's a a categorical statement, brooking no compromise, so it means anything that reduces the frequency must be an overriding imperative, and that we should sacrifice any freedom, any amount of money, to make it happen. Install cameras in every room of every house and have them continually monitored by police, increase taxes to 90% of the national budget, whatever.
And that's where the emotional wiring humanity developed in small tribes misfires. Because we have limited resources, and a limited capacity to solve different problems, so there are always trade offs. "Give me liberty, or give me death" may be an extreme example, but we make the same kind of decisions everyday. Do you buy your dream house cheap, if it's in a neighborhood with a high crime rate? Do you spend $1 billion on fighting cancer, or some disease that's easier to cure but affects far fewer people? Do you spend money on the internet scare of the moment, or do you spend it instead on any of the things that are statistically far more common and easier to fix?
And that's the kind of reason we need to apply, because our empathy is completely, utterly incapable of making the distinction between a risk of 1 in 10,000, and a risk of 1 in 100,000, and those fine (or gross) differences matter. They matter a lot. They matter so much, that I can't emphasize it enough. Because it's the smart decisions that have made our lives drastically safer than those of our ancestors. And the bad decisions throw all that way, in favor of the absolutes demanded by misguided empathy.
But that means we need to crunch the numbers, and see where we can make the greatest impact. We need to recognize our limitations, and realize there are some things we can't solve, or that the solutions are too expensive, given everything else we could spend those resources on. We need to look past the immediate reaction, and put event in context. We need to resist the urge to "do something", and use history and theory to find real solutions instead of palliatives. We need to look past the intent of any programs, and figure out the real consequences. We need to stop the "think about the children!" mentality, because it's always focused on the children on the screen or in the clickbait, and ignores all the other children we can help, but who never go viral. We have to, even if implicitly, put a dollar value on human life, our various freedoms, and the many good things that make life worth living, and then weigh them and decided what balance we prefer; or when we make collective decisions, what we can accept or achieve.
We also need to acknowledge that some things can't be stopped or erased ever, for instance psychos and sociopaths are gonna do bad things, how do we stop that before? PreCrime? Should we put everybody under 24/7 surveillance and catalogue the actions that point to those conditions and then what? Kill/imprison the individual that has committed no crime?
For instance: Children that grow in a broken home tend to commit more crimes, what do we do? Forbid divorce? put those children in jail? kill them?
In the UK thousands of children have been raped by mostly Pakistani and almost 100% Muslim men. What should be done? And those gangs were able to operate for decades because of political correctness. Should we put in jail all Muslim men? And what about the lefties that made it possible for them to operate for decades? Same punishment?
There will always be terrible things happening, always, and no amount of lefty policies is going to change that, hell not even right wing policies (ban porn, ban Islam, etc) would.
I rather live in a dangerous freedom than in a secure slavery.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1120766We also need to acknowledge that some things can't be stopped or erased ever, for instance psychos and sociopaths are gonna do bad things, how do we stop that before? PreCrime? Should we put everybody under 24/7 surveillance and catalogue the actions that point to those conditions and then what? Kill/imprison the individual that has committed no crime?
For instance: Children that grow in a broken home tend to commit more crimes, what do we do? Forbid divorce? put those children in jail? kill them?
That's also one of the examples where we also have to look behind the headlines and the immediate emotional reaction, and trace causes and effects. Because many of those broken homes were caused by social policies and massive spending which were intended to improve the lives they ended up destroying.
Throwing resources at problems without thoroughly examining the root causes and all the possible effects is worse than doing nothing at all, because those wasted resources could have been used on something more worthwhile. And it's usually much worse than that, because treating the superficial symptoms often has the exact opposite of the intended effect, aggravating the underlying problems.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1120766I rather live in a dangerous freedom than in a secure slavery.
Using value judgments to make a decision is the final step. The bigger problem is people keep making value judgments based on incomplete or incorrect information, and thus the value judgments they make are in error. And because value judgments are highly emotional and rarely susceptible to reason, then usually assume anyone who disagrees with their conclusions opposes their values, and in today's highly polarized debates, that means they usually claim the other side lacks any values at all.
Which is patently ridiculous. Everyone (barring a few psychopaths) wants to help the poor, for instance. Where people disagree is what methods are worth the trade offs. If someone starts claiming the other side is heartless and doesn't care about the poor, they're denying the other side's humanity and rejecting reason. That makes any discussion of the real issues almost impossible, and thus virtually guaranteeing any resources will be wasted and the problem will get worse. That's why I say we need less empathy, because so often it leads to monstrous results.
Quote from: Pat;1120757Thanks, that's a perfect example of the kind of misapplied empathy that becomes so destructive.
Let's start with "we should not try to arrange a society where those things don't happen". For those following the conversation, these are the sensational, terrible things that make the national news, from mass shootings to cops killing kids. Except let's step back for a minute, and apply reason to the immediate empathic response. We're wired to treat the needs of other people as our own needs, but that developed when our social group rarely exceeded 100 people. When our lives were tightly integrated into the lives of those 100 people, and they reciprocated that treatment. But when there's breaking news, we're not talking about 100 people; in the US alone we're talking 3 million times a 100 people. And the relationship is entirely one way; we may know every detail about Treyvon Martin or Kim Kardashian's lives, but they never knew us.
Recognizing that doesn't mean we don't care, but it does mean that our empathic reflexes are wrong. For instance, look at your statement that some bad thing should never happen. What does that mean in a social group of 100? We can never stamp out bad things, so it doesn't mean they're truly erased. But in that small group we might be able to reduce their frequency to once a year, or once a generation, or once every several generations. And once something passes from a living memory into a cautionary myth, we can say it never happens.
But 300 million people is equivalent to the living memory of 3 million generations of that small tribe. We can make things so rare that, if we still lived in those tribes, any incidents would vanish into the fog of legend, or be forgotten entirely. But when dealing with the immense number of people alive today, that will rarely be an achievable goal. So what does it mean when you say some specific bad thing should never happen, in that inconceivably larger society? It's a a categorical statement, brooking no compromise, so it means anything that reduces the frequency must be an overriding imperative, and that we should sacrifice any freedom, any amount of money, to make it happen. Install cameras in every room of every house and have them continually monitored by police, increase taxes to 90% of the national budget, whatever.
And that's where the emotional wiring humanity developed in small tribes misfires. Because we have limited resources, and a limited capacity to solve different problems, so there are always trade offs. "Give me liberty, or give me death" may be an extreme example, but we make the same kind of decisions everyday. Do you buy your dream house cheap, if it's in a neighborhood with a high crime rate? Do you spend $1 billion on fighting cancer, or some disease that's easier to cure but affects far fewer people? Do you spend money on the internet scare of the moment, or do you spend it instead on any of the things that are statistically far more common and easier to fix?
And that's the kind of reason we need to apply, because our empathy is completely, utterly incapable of making the distinction between a risk of 1 in 10,000, and a risk of 1 in 100,000, and those fine (or gross) differences matter. They matter a lot. They matter so much, that I can't emphasize it enough. Because it's the smart decisions that have made our lives drastically safer than those of our ancestors. And the bad decisions throw all that way, in favor of the absolutes demanded by misguided empathy.
But that means we need to crunch the numbers, and see where we can make the greatest impact. We need to recognize our limitations, and realize there are some things we can't solve, or that the solutions are too expensive, given everything else we could spend those resources on. We need to look past the immediate reaction, and put event in context. We need to resist the urge to "do something", and use history and theory to find real solutions instead of palliatives. We need to look past the intent of any programs, and figure out the real consequences. We need to stop the "think about the children!" mentality, because it's always focused on the children on the screen or in the clickbait, and ignores all the other children we can help, but who never go viral. We have to, even if implicitly, put a dollar value on human life, our various freedoms, and the many good things that make life worth living, and then weigh them and decided what balance we prefer; or when we make collective decisions, what we can accept or achieve.
Great post. Pat, you are one of my favorite posters here. Always happy to read your thoughts. :D
I also appreciate how you thoughtfully and in great detail addressed the steel man of his point, and sidestepped his breathtakingly disingenuous straw man implication that anyone was advocating that we "not try to arrange a society where those things don't happen".
I don't know if it's the internet or what, but the trend of "either you prioritize things exactly the same way I do or you are evil and do not care about problems and no there is no room to debate" makes me absolutely batty. Reality is complicated and interdependent, as your post so nicely illustrates, and sometimes emotional responses can be misleading (but not always). Lots of things don't have "right" answers so much as "probably more correct based on what we know today" vs. "probably less correct based on what we know today" answers.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I'm with Ben Franklin.
Quote from: Pat;1120757And that's where the emotional wiring humanity developed in small tribes misfires. Because we have limited resources, and a limited capacity to solve different problems, so there are always trade offs. "Give me liberty, or give me death" may be an extreme example, but we make the same kind of decisions everyday. Do you buy your dream house cheap, if it's in a neighborhood with a high crime rate? Do you spend $1 billion on fighting cancer, or some disease that's easier to cure but affects far fewer people? Do you spend money on the internet scare of the moment, or do you spend it instead on any of the things that are statistically far more common and easier to fix?
And that's the kind of reason we need to apply, because our empathy is completely, utterly incapable of making the distinction between a risk of 1 in 10,000, and a risk of 1 in 100,000, and those fine (or gross) differences matter. They matter a lot. They matter so much, that I can't emphasize it enough. Because it's the smart decisions that have made our lives drastically safer than those of our ancestors. And the bad decisions throw all that way, in favor of the absolutes demanded by misguided empathy.
But that means we need to crunch the numbers, and see where we can make the greatest impact. We need to recognize our limitations, and realize there are some things we can't solve, or that the solutions are too expensive, given everything else we could spend those resources on. We need to look past the immediate reaction, and put event in context.
Agreed 100%. This is what I was talking about when speaking of confirmation bias earlier -- and the case of Harvard Professor Charles Lieber. Especially given a global media and social media, one can find a continuing stream news items to get outraged about happening that fits one's preconceptions, and that happens regularly to people of all political stripes. Solutions can pursue our empathetic ideals, but they need to do so in a rational manner.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1120823"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I'm with Ben Franklin.
Yup. I agree with this strongly as well.
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1120776Great post. Pat, you are one of my favorite posters here. Always happy to read your thoughts. :D
I also appreciate how you thoughtfully and in great detail addressed the steel man of his point, and sidestepped his breathtakingly disingenuous straw man implication that anyone was advocating that we "not try to arrange a society where those things don't happen".
I don't know if it's the internet or what, but the trend of "either you prioritize things exactly the same way I do or you are evil and do not care about problems and no there is no room to debate" makes me absolutely batty. Reality is complicated and interdependent, as your post so nicely illustrates, and sometimes emotional responses can be misleading (but not always). Lots of things don't have "right" answers so much as "probably more correct based on what we know today" vs. "probably less correct based on what we know today" answers.
Thanks, and I learned a new term. (https://constantrenewal.com/steel-man/)
There are legitimate differences in values, and they matter. But they're so often obscured by unspoken assumptions, reflexive rhetoric, and the very human tendency to bristle when someone disagrees with what we're saying, that we often can't seem to penetrate the fog and see the real differences. So instead we shout at shadows in the mist and rail at the shapes we imagine we see in them, which may not even approximate the real face or position of the person we're talking to.
It helps to remember what being human really means. We're all social animals, who care about each other and the world as a whole, we all have the capacity of reason. If we start with the assumption, or reach the conclusion, that the person in front of us doesn't care about the poor, or the welfare of the planet, or lacks any compassion, we're the ones who are mistaken. And while we will certainly end up disagreeing to some degree on methods, we share the ability to rationally examine both those methods, and the irrational beliefs and desires that ultimately motivate us.
Is also helps to stop thinking of discussion as a war that must be won at any cost. Arguing on the internet is like voting. Your vote really doesn't matter, it's statistically almost guaranteed you'll never be the deciding factor in any kind of public policy. But in the aggregate, it does matter. Votes, taken as a whole, decide who runs things and who make the rules, and sometimes even determine the rules themselves. The same applies to conversations about politics, or the economy, or nearly anything else of public interest. Those discussions matter, when taken all together; but your contribution, or mine, has an infinitesimal chance of making a difference.
So even if the issue is urgent, there's no need for you or I, as individuals, to adopt a a take-no-prisoners win-at-all-costs mentality. We might as well talk to each other, figure out what we each believe, and come to a greater degree of understanding of how the other person thinks. And how we think, as well, because when our ideas are challenged, and we have to formulate an intelligible response, that forces us to examine and re-examine how we arrived at our own conclusions, and what we really believe. More than that, if all the other people having discussions come to the same realization that talk is not a desperate battle, then the matters we try collectively in the court of public opinion, or settle via the ballot box, will be more rigorously analyzed, and thus be more likely be resolved in better ways. Not to mention, society will just be a nicer place to live in.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1120698How many people getting shot by police accidentally is acceptable?
How much people killed by drinking, or heart disease, or driving accidents is acceptable? Don't make policy based off gut instinct. It's not pragmatic or practical in any way whatsoever.
And Il detail why in song:
[video=youtube;eXWhbUUE4ko]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko[/youtube]
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1121062How much people killed by drinking, or heart disease, or driving accidents is acceptable? Don't make policy based off gut instinct. It's not pragmatic or practical in any way whatsoever.
And Il detail why in song:
[video=youtube;eXWhbUUE4ko]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko[/youtube]
I once visited the suspension bridge near Vancouver, Canada, which includes a little forest trail. I noticed that the whole place was practically fenced in, so that you couldn't stray much from the path, and there were warning signs like "don't jump on the bridge! don't stray from the path!" etc. Shortly afterwards, some stupid kid who jumped on the bridge to make it swing and vibrate died, and people on the radio were urging for more safety measures.
You know what I think should be done? Nothing. The place is already as safe as it can possibly get, unless you tear down the whole thing and replace with elevators and escalators, and perhaps putting the vista points behind big glass walls. In fact, it was already too safe for my liking, TBH. Sometimes shit happens. I'm not much of a daredevil but I don't want to be bubble-wrapped.
OMG! That video is awesome! Thank you Shrieking Banshee!
Notice how Gary Conway tries to explain the flop of "Birds of Pray".
(https://i.redd.it/pc9krhj0l3g41.jpg)
So, the male audience isn't "mature" enough while the female audience simply isn't "large enough". But the fact is, neither is large enough. He's simply not giving any reason why the females didn't show up, because who wants to say anything negative about the female audience?
Of course, most people say it flopped because the movie is preachy feminist shit.
Quote from: Trond;1121647He's simply not giving any reason why the females didn't show up, because who wants to say anything negative about the female audience?
Of course, most people say it flopped because the movie is preachy feminist shit.
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/LividConsciousCondor-size_restricted.gif)
Greetings!
*LAUGHING*!!!!! Oh yeah, I fucking LOVE the moron stupid blindness these jackass SJW feminists have.
"To her credit, Margot Robbie wanted to challenge the need for any of that."
Where have we seen this exact behavior before? Pushing their SJW Feminism is far more important--and the main priority--than in making a good game, writing a good book, or in making a good film. No, it's because MEN are immature! It isn't because the SJW Feminists fuck up everything they try to do with their stupid fucking ideology? Geesus these people are such fucking morons.:D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Trond;1121647Notice how Gary Conway tries to explain the flop of "Birds of Pray".
(https://i.redd.it/pc9krhj0l3g41.jpg)
So, the male audience isn't "mature" enough while the female audience simply isn't "large enough". But the fact is, neither is large enough. He's simply not giving any reason why the females didn't show up, because who wants to say anything negative about the female audience?
Of course, most people say it flopped because the movie is preachy feminist shit.
Stupid fuck. Birds of Prey didn't draw more teenage boys because its rated R.
Quote from: kreegan;1121742Stupid fuck. Birds of Prey didn't draw more teenage boys because its rated R.
:D I didn't even think of that!
Quote from: Trond;1121647Notice how Gary Conway tries to explain the flop of "Birds of Pray".
Gary Cuck-way is a moron. Birds of Prey flopped because it didn't deliver to its audience.
Offline, there aren't enough Man-Haters to make a successful box office run.
Rated R supers flicks are a big risk. You cut out the young teen audience, so you better have a Deadpool or Joker level flick and the previews for BoP were a mess, not a revelation.
Harley Quinn and Birds of Prey are minor DC characters - without involvement by major DC characters, its a very hard sell to anyone outside of the comic book hardcore. Especially as Robbie's Quinn doesn't match her comic book appearance.
As for Gary's bitch whine about T&A, in reality women like sexy women. T&A sells to women. Don't believe me? Pick up any women's fashion magazine.
Interesting quote:
"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise.
We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.
We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."
--C.S. Lewis
Quote from: Trond;1121904Interesting quote:
"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise.
We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.
We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."
--C.S. Lewis
Yeah I like CSLewis allot. His writings on the subjects are great.
Related to Birds of Prey, heard on FBN this morning they're repackaging it and rereleasing because it did so piss poor in the first week.
Quote from: Brad;1121942Related to Birds of Prey, heard on FBN this morning they're repackaging it and rereleasing because it did so piss poor in the first week.
I doubt it'll help. Harley is a villain's unpowered sidekick joining up with a team you've never heard of if you aren't a comic fan.
Yeah, Guardians of the Galaxy was a team you had probably not heard of if you were not a comic fan, but "talking raccoon with violent tendencies" and "walking, talking tree" are interesting and different.
On the other hand, this week's new releases are pretty sparse.
Quote from: Thornhammer;1121952I doubt it'll help. Harley is a villain's unpowered sidekick joining up with a team you've never heard of if you aren't a comic fan.
Yeah, Guardians of the Galaxy was a team you had probably not heard of if you were not a comic fan, but "talking raccoon with violent tendencies" and "walking, talking tree" are interesting and different.
On the other hand, this week's new releases are pretty sparse.
I like Huntress and Black Canary, but honestly, if you've never read a Batman or Justice League comic, would you have any clue who the fuck they are? Also it doesn't really help that all the characters range from marginally heroic to outright criminal; this is just Suicide Squad 2 with an all-female cast. No Batgirl/Oracle = no Birds of Prey, sorry.
It's not like ANY of the DC films in the past ten years have been worth a crap, anyway. They make garbage like this that won't appeal to fans of the comics on which they're based, and have zero appeal to anyone who only marginally follows comics. Everyone in the universe knows who Batman is, but I doubt 95% of the movie-going public has a clue Zsasz is a Batman villain.
My wife, who knows jackshit about comics, loves Guardians of the Galaxy. The second one is on her list of all-time favorite movies, actually. I think it's because there is a strong humorous streak in the Marvel movies, but the DC movies...they take themselves way too seriously. Which makes 100% sense in the comics, but no one is going to take dudes shooting laser beams out of their fucking eyeballs seriously unless that dude is either Superman, or has some sort of humility/self-awareness. Hell, no one even took Superman seriously in Batman V Superman because it was so dark and depressing. The Wonder Woman movie was the best of the bunch, and they're already fucking up the sequel...contrast this with the DC animated universe. Probably the best animated shows ever, why can't they get the movies right? I don't get it.
Quote from: Thornhammer;1121952I doubt it'll help. Harley is a villain's unpowered sidekick joining up with a team you've never heard of if you aren't a comic fan.
Yeah, Guardians of the Galaxy was a team you had probably not heard of if you were not a comic fan, but "talking raccoon with violent tendencies" and "walking, talking tree" are interesting and different.
On the other hand, this week's new releases are pretty sparse.
Marvel earned a lot of trust from the filmgoing audience before going full quirky with GOTG. DC' track record hasn't been nearly as good.
I haven't seen Birds of Prey (or "Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey" as it's been rebranded), so no opinion on the movie itself.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1121894Harley Quinn and Birds of Prey are minor DC characters - without involvement by major DC characters, its a very hard sell to anyone outside of the comic book hardcore. Especially as Robbie's Quinn doesn't match her comic book appearance.
As for Gary's bitch whine about T&A, in reality women like sexy women. T&A sells to women. Don't believe me? Pick up any women's fashion magazine.
I think Guardians of the Galaxy, Deadpool, and Venom have shown that movies don't need to be about previously well-known comic characters. The primarily non-comic-reading audience doesn't care about the comic history, in general. As for T&A in general -- women's magazines and film have a distinct art style from men's magazines, even though they both include attractive women. If you filled a Maxim magazine with pictures from Cosmo, the primarily male readers would be like "WTF?!?" Likewise, movies like The Notebook or The Proposal feature attractive women, but they don't go over as well with male audiences.
Quote from: Brad;1121954My wife, who knows jackshit about comics, loves Guardians of the Galaxy. The second one is on her list of all-time favorite movies, actually. I think it's because there is a strong humorous streak in the Marvel movies, but the DC movies...they take themselves way too seriously. Which makes 100% sense in the comics, but no one is going to take dudes shooting laser beams out of their fucking eyeballs seriously unless that dude is either Superman, or has some sort of humility/self-awareness. Hell, no one even took Superman seriously in Batman V Superman because it was so dark and depressing. The Wonder Woman movie was the best of the bunch, and they're already fucking up the sequel...contrast this with the DC animated universe. Probably the best animated shows ever, why can't they get the movies right? I don't get it.
I think the humor is a big factor, but there's also just good writing. Guardians starts with Quill's mother dying of cancer -- that's dark, but it works and it adds a lot of depth to Quill's character as a nice contrast to the humor. Batman V Superman wasn't just dark - it was stupid. Indeed, the whole concept was a dumb pointless conflict between the two. IMO, there's tons of potential within both Marvel and DC material for feature films. It's all a question of how to adapt it.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1121970Marvel earned a lot of trust from the filmgoing audience before going full quirky with GOTG. DC' track record hasn't been nearly as good.
There was a lot of surprise that Guardians turned out as well as it did, so I'm not sure that's an important factor. I think it's less trust in an individual studio or shared universe, and more that the abundance of super hero films means there's more room for a few to mix it up by shifting genres.
Quote from: Brad;1121954I like Huntress and Black Canary, but honestly, if you've never read a Batman or Justice League comic, would you have any clue who the fuck they are?
Depends if "you" watches the CW soap operas. With the various cartoons, and now some very long-running live-action shows with ever-growing galleries of rogues and allies, there are a lot of relatively minor characters who are now known outside comic book fandom.
Quote from: Pat;1121979Depends if "you" watches the CW soap operas. With the various cartoons, and now some very long-running live-action shows with ever-growing galleries of rogues and allies, there are a lot of relatively minor characters who are now known outside comic book fandom.
I just looked it up, and all of the CW superhero shows have ~1 million viewers aged 18-49 per week, and I'd bet most of them are shared. Let's be generous and quadruple that number to include old people and people who don't care about most of the shows or whatever. 4 million is a pittance of viewership, so I'll still maintain that the average person has no idea who Huntress is. To be perfectly honest, The Flash is probably my favorite DC hero, and I had zero idea there was a new show even on every week.
Quote from: Brad;1121983I just looked it up, and all of the CW superhero shows have ~1 million viewers aged 18-49 per week, and I'd bet most of them are shared. Let's be generous and quadruple that number to include old people and people who don't care about most of the shows or whatever. 4 million is a pittance of viewership, so I'll still maintain that the average person has no idea who Huntress is. To be perfectly honest, The Flash is probably my favorite DC hero, and I had zero idea there was a new show even on every week.
I wasn't talking about the average person, that's not what you asked.
But you're also not their audience. CW's is watched by young adults, who tend to have disproportionate cultural influence, and a much larger presence in various online social media, so there's more opportunity to pick things up by osmosis. And with high turnover rates, Arrow's eight years could easily get a new multiple every couple of years. And that's not counting the shows on Netflix, or all the cartoons over the years like the Justice League umbra, Teen Titans, it's annoying little sibling, and so on. There are a lot of points of entry, and they're mostly aimed at people in their formative years, when what they watch is likely to be carried with them throughout their lives, instead of quickly forgotten. It's not just comics.
Quote from: Pat;1121995I wasn't talking about the average person, that's not what you asked.
But you're also not their audience. CW's is watched by young adults, who tend to have disproportionate cultural influence, and a much larger presence in various online social media, so there's more opportunity to pick things up by osmosis. And with high turnover rates, Arrow's eight years could easily get a new multiple every couple of years. And that's not counting the shows on Netflix, or all the cartoons over the years like the Justice League umbra, Teen Titans, it's annoying little sibling, and so on. There are a lot of points of entry, and they're mostly aimed at people in their formative years, when what they watch is likely to be carried with them throughout their lives, instead of quickly forgotten. It's not just comics.
Sure, but my point was specifically that 95% of people who go to the movies don't know who those characters are. Also, "young adults" now, do they even go to the movies..? Seems like if it's not on Netflix or Hulu, they're not watching it.
Quote from: Brad;1121997Sure, but my point was specifically that 95% of people who go to the movies don't know who those characters are. Also, "young adults" now, do they even go to the movies..? Seems like if it's not on Netflix or Hulu, they're not watching it.
From what I read, theatrical releases are still going strong among all ages. 2019 was a slight decline from 2018, but we're still well over the 1990s market.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4153[/ATTACH]
Source: https://www.the-numbers.com/market/
For specific age demographics, here's the 2018 report from the MPAA. (page 26 has the age demographic breakdowns)
https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/MPAA-THEME-Report-2018.pdf
Quote from: jhkim;1122000From what I read, theatrical releases are still going strong among all ages. 2019 was a slight decline from 2018, but we're still well over the 1990s market.
So then the only conclusion is the movie sucks and no one cares.
Quote from: Brad;1121997Sure, but my point was specifically that 95% of people who go to the movies don't know who those characters are.
Which is trivial to beat, when we add the TV numbers to the 5% you reserved for comic book fans.
I think we're circling around definitions and second-guessing. I stand by my point that the audience is larger than you implied, but I'm not making any particular claim about its absolute size, either.
Quote from: Pat;1122003Which is trivial to beat, when we add the TV numbers to the 5% you reserved for comic book fans.
I think we're circling around definitions and second-guessing. I stand by my point that the audience is larger than you implied, but I'm not making any particular claim about its absolute size, either.
That's fair, but again, it either means 1) the movie just totally sucked because the alleged audience didn't see it, or 2) there isn't a large enough audience to support the film. Hence, green-light a film to promote an agenda or something.
Quote from: Brad;1122081That's fair, but again, it either means 1) the movie just totally sucked because the alleged audience didn't see it, or 2) there isn't a large enough audience to support the film. Hence, green-light a film to promote an agenda or something.
Critical reviews are pretty good, but the opening day CinemaScore of B+ is a bit meh, on par with Justice League and Superman v Batman. BOM mentions the CinemaScore rating jumps to A- among younger audiences, which might push the score lower for the older audiences -- the R rating might have killed it.
Quote from: jhkim;1121974I think Guardians of the Galaxy, Deadpool, and Venom have shown that movies don't need to be about previously well-known comic characters.
Guardians sold itself as a Star Wars movie. "If you like space ships, aliens and cosmic heroes, come see this!" is an easy sell.
Venom has been a major feature in Spiderman since forever. He's been in Spidey comics, Spidey cartoons and Spidey movies before getting his own half-assed movie.
I agree on Deadpool as the breakout character. The original trailer was funny, violent and fresh. That sold the movie to people who never heard of the character. If the same was true about the Harley Quinn movie, it would be doing much better.
Quote from: jhkim;1121974If you filled a Maxim magazine with pictures from Cosmo, the primarily male readers would be like "WTF?!?"
And if their internet is down, we all know what they're doing with that Cosmo!
Running data through an AI and it identified up to nine separate coordinate axes of gender? (https://neurosciencenews.com/machine-learning-gender-15717/?fbclid=IwAR0bK9D-ssYSKeizW9fAZ_HeHQ1Fe7IPctT9jIuR7apnze7IOMfLoVyeGXY) O.o
This stuff is getting out of hand...
Quote from: CarlD.;1122756Running data through an AI and it identified up to nine separate coordinate axes of gender? (https://neurosciencenews.com/machine-learning-gender-15717/?fbclid=IwAR0bK9D-ssYSKeizW9fAZ_HeHQ1Fe7IPctT9jIuR7apnze7IOMfLoVyeGXY) O.o
This stuff is getting out of hand...
"Rather than only studying gender behaviour in a male and a female group, as is commonly done, they acquired a rich sample that also included individuals that underwent sex transformation from male to female as well as individuals that have undergone sex transformation from female to male.... The researchers used machine learning algorithms that could provide evidence that sex/gender may not be a dichotomic entity in the human brain. "Gee I wonder why. If you take a random sample of the population, then the two sexes show up sharply. They probably deliberately added a lot of trans people. "By sampling people with five to no fingers per hand, we discovered that having five fingers is not the norm at all!"
....aaaand sure enough, I was right. I found a draft of the paper on Google scholar:
"92 participants were recruited in the present study, including 23 cisgender males, 23 cisgender females, 23 trans men and 23 trans women."
OF COURSE you will get noisy data if you pick rare outliers like that.
Quote from: Trond;1122763....aaaand sure enough, I was right. I found a draft of the paper on Google scholar:
"92 participants were recruited in the present study, including 23 cisgender males, 23 cisgender females, 23 trans men and 23 trans women."
OF COURSE you will get noisy data if you pick rare outliers like that.
Wow, the "cis" side is 99% of the total population and the other is like 1 out of every 1000 people. That seems like a weirdly skewed ratio designed to come to a predetermined conclusion.
Quote from: Trond;1122762
"Rather than only studying gender behaviour in a male and a female group, as is commonly done, they acquired a rich sample that also included individuals that underwent sex transformation from male to female as well as individuals that have undergone sex transformation from female to male.... The researchers used machine learning algorithms that could provide evidence that sex/gender may not be a dichotomic entity in the human brain. "
Gee I wonder why. If you take a random sample of the population, then the two sexes show up sharply. They probably deliberately added a lot of trans people. "By sampling people with five to no fingers per hand, we discovered that having five fingers is not the norm at all!"
From what you quoted it was obvious the bias and the tricks they would engage into to come with numbers that supported it.
There's no such thing as "Sex Transformation". Sex is determined by your chromosomes (yes even taking into account the very rare syndromes dear lefties), IF we concede that gender isn't determined by sex it follows that you could change gender not sex.
But it doesn't surprise me at all, they have been pushing the fib that biological sex is a myth for about 2 years now.
Quote from: Trond;1122763....aaaand sure enough, I was right. I found a draft of the paper on Google scholar:
"92 participants were recruited in the present study, including 23 cisgender males, 23 cisgender females, 23 trans men and 23 trans women."
OF COURSE you will get noisy data if you pick rare outliers like that.
cisgender is a slur, anybody that uses it in a non ironical way can go fuck themselves with a baseball bath wraped in barbwire
SIDEWAYS!
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1122768Wow, the "cis" side is 99% of the total population and the other is like 1 out of every 1000 people. That seems like a weirdly skewed ratio designed to come to a predetermined conclusion.
99.9& of the population at least don't suffer from gender disforia.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;112277599.9& of the population at least don't suffer from gender disforia.
You bigot! Don't you know that taking hormones, and hormone blockers, pretending that your hips have a different shape, and doing surgery to transform your genitals are all entirely natural things?
Quote from: GeekyBugle;112277599.9& of the population at least don't suffer from gender disforia.
Isn't that what I said? 999/1000 = 99.9%
Quote from: Trond;1122778You bigot! Don't you know that taking hormones, and hormone blockers, pretending that your hips have a different shape, and doing surgery to transform your genitals are all entirely natural things?
Like I even approached it from a humanitarian perspective. But I can't in good faith say I feel this makes those people happier. It's a dead end sociologically...and maybe literally.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1122780Like I even approached it from a humanitarian perspective. But I can't in good faith say I feel this makes those people happier. It's a dead end sociologically...and maybe literally.
The suicide rate doesn't drop even among post op and even in the meme country of Sweden. So maybe there's something much more humanitarian to do to help the people with gender dysphoria?
Quote from: Trond;1122778You bigot! Don't you know that taking hormones, and hormone blockers, pretending that your hips have a different shape, and doing surgery to transform your genitals are all entirely natural things?
LOL, and you're a bigot if you don't want to suck the feminine benis, just ask the lesbians currently under attack for the sin of not wanting a dick attached to their lovers.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1122781The suicide rate doesn't drop even among post op and even in the meme country of Sweden. So maybe there's something much more humanitarian to do to help the people with gender dysphoria?
Yes, that's what I meant.
Quote from: Trond;1122763....aaaand sure enough, I was right. I found a draft of the paper on Google scholar:
"92 participants were recruited in the present study, including 23 cisgender males, 23 cisgender females, 23 trans men and 23 trans women."
OF COURSE you will get noisy data if you pick rare outliers like that.
Thanks, I was wondering about the validity of the study's techniques. Those result seemed over the top.
Quote from: CarlD.;1122756Running data through an AI and it identified up to nine separate coordinate axes of gender? (https://neurosciencenews.com/machine-learning-gender-15717/?fbclid=IwAR0bK9D-ssYSKeizW9fAZ_HeHQ1Fe7IPctT9jIuR7apnze7IOMfLoVyeGXY) O.o
This stuff is getting out of hand...
Quote from: CarlD.;1122801Thanks, I was wondering about the validity of the study's techniques. Those result seemed over the top.
I haven't read the full paper - just the article and the abstract. But it seems to me that the article isn't saying that much. Saying that there are 9 axes in the pattern recognition doesn't say much about the strength of the clustering. If there was only a single axis, then we'd have male-type brains and female-type brains, with presumably two peaks and variation along that spectrum.
Even with only one axis, there could be strong clustering -- i.e. men all think one way, and women think a different way with no little variation. Or there could be more overlap - where there are some men that think more like average women, and some women that think more like average men.
With nine axes, you could still have strong clustering. It just means that when there are edge cases, they are different edge cases -- rather than all trans-men having similar brain patterns, for example.
Quote from: jhkim;1122848I haven't read the full paper - just the article and the abstract. But it seems to me that the article isn't saying that much. Saying that there are 9 axes in the pattern recognition doesn't say much about the strength of the clustering. If there was only a single axis, then we'd have male-type brains and female-type brains, with presumably two peaks and variation along that spectrum.
Even with only one axis, there could be strong clustering -- i.e. men all think one way, and women think a different way with no little variation. Or there could be more overlap - where there are some men that think more like average women, and some women that think more like average men.
With nine axes, you could still have strong clustering. It just means that when there are edge cases, they are different edge cases -- rather than all trans-men having similar brain patterns, for example.
Having done some PCA studies myself, I'm almost certain you would not find those same axes if the population were randomly sampled. These guys used some sort of computer learning, but they "taught" the computer a very biased thing. It really is very similar to the "fingers" joke I made a few posts back.
Quote from: Trond;1120072Did you notice that even Michelle Wolf, herself a rather obnoxious feminist, has finally understood that some radical feminists are this much batshit crazy? She joked that although she's a feminist, she knows that men are stronger than women, because she's not an idiot. And she also noted that some feminists DO admit that they hate all men. Most men were of course not surprised. That's......something I suppose. Baby steps.
Its a little saddening. I supported, as did many friends of mine, aspect of what I guess would be earlier waves of feminism quite a bit. I wouldn't call myself a "male feminist", the concept seems a bit a ridiculous frankly, so I guess I was an 'ally' in today parlance. Now though, it genuinely feels like that is unwelcome by an increasingly mainstream portion of the the 'movement' (which is and has been diverse, admittedly).
It feels as if its become more about women's superiority and male fault. That men are intellectually, but more ethically, emotionally even spiritually inferior and, at best, physically dead equal or behind in all physical senses. That if a man comes emerges victorious in any confrontation with a woman its solely because of sexism, Patriarchy, the Glass Ceiling or whatever the many names are. And Feminism is more about punishing men for that...and seemingly for not being women.
OTOH, the women are perpetual victims being held down by their brutish, stupid and immature sperm warmers, noble goddesses that need male help (for some reason) to ascend to their true role as Harbingers of paradise on Earth.
Yeah, that's being sarcastic, but it comes across that way pretty often.
And pop culture appears to be adopting that angle as well, in part because humans seem geared to take the suffering and harm towards females more emotionally than makes (for some solid biological reason, most likely, but its an important bit female 'privilege' that like other double standards that favor women is ignored or considered the norm or deserved.
I wonder what effects on the current zeitgeist will have boys and young men growing under it, hearing how 'toxic' what they are is, filled with images, stories and insinuation of their innate failing compared to the superiority of women and that anything with less of their 'kind' is automatically better. I remember hearing from boys as far back as the 90s statements like about fiction where it was 'boys vs girls' that the automatic and resigned assumption that the girls would win (and the boys humiliated and depicted as jerks besides) and that was in times that are currently deemed intolerably sexist, even misogynistic.
That seems even more driven home now, moving through out and beyond fiction. You have people waxing wishful how they don't even want sons, but daughters...
There are programs, support groups, studies, etc for women's issues and women's problems. Boys seem increasingly left to sink or swim as they can. There have have studies that illustrate performance and fitness among boys and young men but it seems to generate little reaction. Maybe its the pendulum swinging and eventually things will settle into a more balanced medium but it promises some interesting times over the next few decades.
Quote from: CarlD.;1123715I wonder what effects on the current zeitgeist will have boys and young men growing under it, hearing how 'toxic' what they are is, filled with images, stories and insinuation of their innate failing compared to the superiority of women and that anything with less of their 'kind' is automatically better. I remember hearing from boys as far back as the 90s statements like about fiction where it was 'boys vs girls' that the automatic and resigned assumption that the girls would win (and the boys humiliated and depicted as jerks besides) and that was in times that are currently deemed intolerably sexist, even misogynistic.
That seems even more driven home now, moving through out and beyond fiction. You have people waxing wishful how they don't even want sons, but daughters...
There are programs, support groups, studies, etc for women's issues and women's problems. Boys seem increasingly left to sink or swim as they can. There have have studies that illustrate performance and fitness among boys and young men but it seems to generate little reaction. Maybe its the pendulum swinging and eventually things will settle into a more balanced medium but it promises some interesting times over the next few decades.
I think there's a lot of pushback, at least it seems like it online. I think the pendulum's already swinging back, but it will take years to see the results in mainstream culture.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1123719I think there's a lot of pushback, at least it seems like it online. I think the pendulum's already swinging back, but it will take years to see the results in mainstream culture.
I have had several (late-teen early twenties) students who roll their eyes at SJWs and terms like "trigger warnings".
The anti-male SJW stupidity is heavily dominated by honky women and their weakling male honky allies. I don't see this anti-male bullshit becoming popular in the Latino or Asian community. The black community is such a mess already, so who knows how it will play out there.
I wondering where the first major backlash will come from. The women who are losing female spaces to the transvestites? Or the men who might be finally tired of the feminist bullshit? Or the Latinos enraged at honky liberals trying to emasculate their men and break their families? Or maybe even Black America standing up and reclaiming their strong family heritage?
Or the backlash becomes regional? AKA, Red State vs. Blue State drawing down much harder cultural lines.
Quote from: CarlD.;1123715There are programs, support groups, studies, etc for women's issues and women's problems. Boys seem increasingly left to sink or swim as they can.
This will eventually fuel the backlash. Those who succeed, recognizing their success was based on their own efforts, will recognize their superiority against those whose existence requires programs, support groups and other government intervention.
Let's be honest. Everybody in every office knows who the diversity hire is....and treats them accordingly. Sharp and independent employees recognize and respect each other, and will seek to build companies with each other and recruit those like themselves.
And small companies are exempt from much of federal laws that empower HR nonsense.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1123770Or the backlash becomes regional? AKA, Red State vs. Blue State drawing down much harder cultural lines.
If it hardens, secession wouldn't be a bad thing. That's the problem with a central government that imposes lots rules on everyone. Inevitably, more and more of the rules will become intolerable, and the only option is to fight to get your preferences imposed on everyone else instead. And the more everyone separates into different tribes, the more it accelerates. Devolving those rules to the regional, state, county, or municipal level allows local preferences to be respected, and reduces the stress on the system. And the ultimate version of that is breaking up, say allowing California and Texas to become separate nation-states.
Quote from: SpinachcatOr the backlash becomes regional? AKA, Red State vs. Blue State drawing down much harder cultural lines.
Quote from: Pat;1123776If it hardens, secession wouldn't be a bad thing. That's the problem with a central government that imposes lots rules on everyone. Inevitably, more and more of the rules will become intolerable, and the only option is to fight to get your preferences imposed on everyone else instead. And the more everyone separates into different tribes, the more it accelerates. Devolving those rules to the regional, state, county, or municipal level allows local preferences to be respected, and reduces the stress on the system. And the ultimate version of that is breaking up, say allowing California and Texas to become separate nation-states.
From my view of politics, it seems to me that smaller nations are just as prone to corruption and totalitarianism as larger nations - if not moreso. There have been secessions that have worked out well, but more often than not, balkanization leads to less freedom for everyone.
With the power to do so, each region tends to impose more restrictive rules to conform to their preferences. Whereas with a central government, more compromises are required between regional factions, which can allow more individual freedom.
Quote from: jhkim;1123825From my view of politics, it seems to me that smaller nations are just as prone to corruption and totalitarianism as larger nations - if not moreso. There have been secessions that have worked out well, but more often than not, balkanization leads to less freedom for everyone.
With the power to do so, each region tends to impose more restrictive rules to conform to their preferences. Whereas with a central government, more compromises are required between regional factions, which can allow more individual freedom.
I shudder to think what Alabama would be like under our state Constitution without the US Constitution above it.
Quote from: jhkim;1123825From my view of politics, it seems to me that smaller nations are just as prone to corruption and totalitarianism as larger nations - if not moreso. There have been secessions that have worked out well, but more often than not, balkanization leads to less freedom for everyone.
With the power to do so, each region tends to impose more restrictive rules to conform to their preferences. Whereas with a central government, more compromises are required between regional factions, which can allow more individual freedom.
Except central governments generally don't involve a lot of compromise. What happens is the majority imposes their will on the minorities. Extreme examples lead to totalitarian states and quite literally the worst genocides in history, and lesser examples still lead to plenty of strife. Look at the Kurds today, the Slovaks and the Bosnians in the 1990s, or the Ukrainians in the 1920s, and so on. When you have distinct minority groups, which have traditionally been ethnic or religious groups but today can include different political alignments and ideologies, you end up with irreconcilable differences. This is true even in democracies, especially in the first winner past the post systems, but also to a slightly lesser extent in parliamentary systems. If you're not part of a majority or a majority coalition, you may never have representation, much less influence on political outcomes.
That's why limited government is so important, because it's the only real protection minorities have. And that's the key to federalism as well -- identifying and maintaining the core values that almost everyone can agree on (broad consensus opinion instead of majoritarianism), using those as ground rules, and then pushing the rest of the decisions down to the various subgroups. Because the more you do at the higher level, the more likely you are to run stumble across ones where people are simply unable to come to a consensus decision. And when you force one of those decisions on everyone, you alienate everyone who doesn't agree, and either silence them or make them far more politically active. And since people belong to multiple groups, if you make enough of those decisions, you'll eventually alienate nearly everyone. That's why it's important to focus on the commonalities, and let people go their own way when there is no consensus.
For a good example, look at abortion. (For the purposes of this example, I don't give a damn what your opinion is on the topic, and anyone who starts arguing one side or the other will be scathingly dismissed.) All that matters is there is no compromise between the two camps. They have a fundamental difference of opinion, and no amount of talking will resolve it. The top-down solution in place has torn apart the country, and even if it's reversed, it will still continue to tear apart the country, because there will be large groups who vehemently disagree with either decision. And it's not the specific answer that's the problem, it's that there is one answer, and it was imposed on everyone.
Now the problem won't go away by pushing it down to the state or local level, but it will be diminished. Most of the activism is because people are fighting for what they want to happen to them, the people their know, and their neighbors. Someone may still hate that X is allowed or forbidden in some distant land, or in another state, or in the next town the road. But it's a lot less immediate, a lot less pressing.
That's the only practical way to deal with these fracture points. Isolate the decisions. A very good example of that happening recently is marijuana legalization. Which is still illegal at the federal level, but those laws were largely (and officially) ignored, allowing each state to make their own decisions. The tools we have to isolate those kinds of decisions, from the strongest to the weakest, are nation-states, federal governments, state governments, county governments, municipal governments, and personal choice.
Quote from: jhkimFrom my view of politics, it seems to me that smaller nations are just as prone to corruption and totalitarianism as larger nations - if not moreso. There have been secessions that have worked out well, but more often than not, balkanization leads to less freedom for everyone.
With the power to do so, each region tends to impose more restrictive rules to conform to their preferences. Whereas with a central government, more compromises are required between regional factions, which can allow more individual freedom.
Quote from: Pat;1123842Except central governments generally don't involve a lot of compromise. What happens is the majority imposes their will on the minorities. Extreme examples lead to totalitarian states and quite literally the worst genocides in history, and lesser examples still lead to plenty of strife. Look at the Kurds today, the Slovaks and the Bosnians in the 1990s, or the Ukrainians in the 1920s, and so on.
I would argue that the Bosnians demonstrate precisely the problem of balkanization. Fed up with imposed authority from the Soviet central government, the Slovaks and Bosnians declared independence. But being free of the central Soviet government did not result in greater individual freedom. Instead, it lead to even greater tyranny of the local majorities. Tyranny and repression most certainly exist -- but having a smaller local government does not protect against this. The smaller local government is just as likely to be tyrannical and repressive of the individual citizens.
Quote from: Pat;1123842When you have distinct minority groups, which have traditionally been ethnic or religious groups but today can include different political alignments and ideologies, you end up with irreconcilable differences. This is true even in democracies, especially in the first winner past the post systems, but also to a slightly lesser extent in parliamentary systems. If you're not part of a majority or a majority coalition, you may never have representation, much less influence on political outcomes.
But there will always be minorities, regardless of how small you split up your democracies. Sure, under U.S. federal law, maybe a bunch of Alabamians feel like they don't have the control they want. If Alabama were free of the U.S. federal government -- sure, there would be a different set of people in control. But that wouldn't get rid of irreconcilable differences. There would instead be a new group of minority people within Alabama who have irreconcilable differences with the Alabama majority.
It wouldn't necessarily be like Bosnia and Slovenia, but I don't think it would result in less strife or differences.
Quote from: Pat;1123842Now the problem won't go away by pushing it down to the state or local level, but it will be diminished. Most of the activism is because people are fighting for what they want to happen to them, the people their know, and their neighbors. Someone may still hate that X is allowed or forbidden in some distant land, or in another state, or in the next town the road. But it's a lot less immediate, a lot less pressing.
That's the only practical way to deal with these fracture points. Isolate the decisions. A very good example of that happening recently is marijuana legalization. Which is still illegal at the federal level, but those laws were largely (and officially) ignored, allowing each state to make their own decisions. The tools we have to isolate those kinds of decisions, from the strongest to the weakest, are nation-states, federal governments, state governments, county governments, municipal governments, and personal choice.
Taking the issue of marijuana legalization -- I'd argue that letting each locality ban substances as they see fit leads to less freedom of personal choice. If Alabama can declare marijuana illegal, and Utah can declare alcohol illegal, and New York can declare trans-fats illegal, etc. -- then the result is less freedom for individuals to choose what they want. Having federal law and a strong Constitution means there is a higher bar for making given substances illegal.
Quote from: jhkim;1123868I would argue that the Bosnians demonstrate precisely the problem of balkanization. Fed up with imposed authority from the Soviet central government, the Slovaks and Bosnians declared independence. But being free of the central Soviet government did not result in greater individual freedom. Instead, it lead to even greater tyranny of the local majorities. Tyranny and repression most certainly exist -- but having a smaller local government does not protect against this. The smaller local government is just as likely to be tyrannical and repressive of the individual citizens.
A smaller government by its very structure has less control over the individual and there are more places to go to escape from one. Would you suggest that more monopolies=less corruption and better service?
Quote from: jhkimI would argue that the Bosnians demonstrate precisely the problem of balkanization. Fed up with imposed authority from the Soviet central government, the Slovaks and Bosnians declared independence. But being free of the central Soviet government did not result in greater individual freedom. Instead, it lead to even greater tyranny of the local majorities. Tyranny and repression most certainly exist -- but having a smaller local government does not protect against this. The smaller local government is just as likely to be tyrannical and repressive of the individual citizens.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1123877A smaller government by its very structure has less control over the individual and there are more places to go to escape from one. Would you suggest that more monopolies=less corruption and better service?
When I say "smaller local government", I am talking about the area and population that it has sway over - not a quality of what sort of government it is. A very tiny country like Eritrea or Syria has a smaller government, but I disagree that they have less control over the individual. Some of the most repressive governments in the world are very small - like South Sudan or Turkmenistan. Individuals in these countries have few rights, and it is not easy to escape from them.
Along similar lines, being a monopoly is not inherently about being large or small. If a company in some rural town has a contract with the town government as the only ones zoned to show movies, then they have a monopoly.
Quote from: jhkim;1123868I would argue that the Bosnians demonstrate precisely the problem of balkanization. Fed up with imposed authority from the Soviet central government, the Slovaks and Bosnians declared independence. But being free of the central Soviet government did not result in greater individual freedom. Instead, it lead to even greater tyranny of the local majorities. Tyranny and repression most certainly exist -- but having a smaller local government does not protect against this. The smaller local government is just as likely to be tyrannical and repressive of the individual citizens.
Quote from: jhkim;1123868But there will always be minorities, regardless of how small you split up your democracies. Sure, under U.S. federal law, maybe a bunch of Alabamians feel like they don't have the control they want. If Alabama were free of the U.S. federal government -- sure, there would be a different set of people in control. But that wouldn't get rid of irreconcilable differences. There would instead be a new group of minority people within Alabama who have irreconcilable differences with the Alabama majority.
It wouldn't necessarily be like Bosnia and Slovenia, but I don't think it would result in less strife or differences.
Quote from: jhkim;1123868Taking the issue of marijuana legalization -- I'd argue that letting each locality ban substances as they see fit leads to less freedom of personal choice. If Alabama can declare marijuana illegal, and Utah can declare alcohol illegal, and New York can declare trans-fats illegal, etc. -- then the result is less freedom for individuals to choose what they want. Having federal law and a strong Constitution means there is a higher bar for making given substances illegal.
Except the cost of the Soviet peace was living for more than 70 years under genocidal totalitarian control, and it didn't solve the problem anyway. It just sublimated it, so the ethnic strife burst out with a redoubled fury when the Union fell apart. It's not the size of the states that causes the problem, it's how they were carved up and how much power is vested in them. When you make composite states composed of highly divergent groups, as occurred throughout the last century in eastern Europe, and end up with a situation where an ethnic majority shares a state with an ethnic majority, it encourages demagogues with a desire for power to fan the flames of discontent, in order to use it as an excuse to centralize more and more power, under their control. That can happen even if the groups have lived together peacefully for decades or centuries; both the Holocaust and the earlier Armenian genocide followed that pattern. The check isn't size, it's borders and limited, decentralized government.
There's no evidence for it, but let's assume for a moment that your statement that that smaller governments are just as likely to be tyrannical as larger governments is true. Then let's compare a world with 100 nations, half of which are tyrannical, with a world in which there are 10 nations, half of which are also tyrannical. Which is better, for a random individual? Clearly, the former. Because if you do live in a tyrannical centi-state, then the border to the nearest free state is closer than if you lived in a tyrannical deci-state. Then imagine a world with 1 state. If it happens to be tyrannical, there's no escape. The only way you can rationalize supporting larger states is if you're sure they won't be tyrannical.
But this isn't about jkim's personal assessment of whether a state is tyrannical. It's about gun rights, and gay marriage, and social welfare programs, and central banks, and funding for the arts, and a zillion other things where people care passionately, but don't always agree. It's not a binary objective decision, it's about preferences and best matches. And the more states there are, the more options you have, thus the better your chances of finding a relatively optimal fit. And even if you don't want to move, the fewer top-down decisions and smaller units of governance make it easier to change things to your liking. Because in a large nation, it's extraordinarily unlikely an individual or a small group will have a real effect on political outcomes. But if it's local, you have a real chance to make a difference, if you try.
Quote from: Pat;1123776If it hardens, secession wouldn't be a bad thing.
I doubt the US sees secession without violence, either by civil war or collapse of the central government.
The question about what happens with the Culture War depends much on what GenZ becomes. Currently, they range from age 8 to age 23 (median age of 15). We will see some of their political impact or leanings in 2020, but they will be the key youth demographic in 2024 and 2028. It should be clear by 2024 if Gen Z are just Millennials 2.0, or not.
If the mass of Gen Z are aligned with the Cultural Left / Cultural Marxists, then there won't be any secession as the only opposition to the Culture War will be too old to take any meaningful action.
But instead, there will definitely be a collapse coming!
Quote from: Spinachcat;1123921I doubt the US sees secession without violence, either by civil war or collapse of the central government.
That was Lincoln's doing. Before his emphasis on the Union, most people in the US assumed it was a voluntary association, and the states could leave any time they felt like it. Since then, people just assume they can't leave. It's worth questioning that default, because states tend to be jealous of their territory only because those in power don't want to see their sway diminished. That's not a good reason.
And I suspect Gen Z's alignment will depend on the economy when they start working.
Quote from: jhkimTaking the issue of marijuana legalization -- I'd argue that letting each locality ban substances as they see fit leads to less freedom of personal choice. If Alabama can declare marijuana illegal, and Utah can declare alcohol illegal, and New York can declare trans-fats illegal, etc. -- then the result is less freedom for individuals to choose what they want. Having federal law and a strong Constitution means there is a higher bar for making given substances illegal.
Quote from: Pat;1123895But this isn't about jkim's personal assessment of whether a state is tyrannical. It's about gun rights, and gay marriage, and social welfare programs, and central banks, and funding for the arts, and a zillion other things where people care passionately, but don't always agree. It's not a binary objective decision, it's about preferences and best matches. And the more states there are, the more options you have, thus the better your chances of finding a relatively optimal fit. And even if you don't want to move, the fewer top-down decisions and smaller units of governance make it easier to change things to your liking. Because in a large nation, it's extraordinarily unlikely an individual or a small group will have a real effect on political outcomes. But if it's local, you have a real chance to make a difference, if you try.
My impression is that you're concerned about the tyranny of the majority -- and that you value a government that interferes less with the lives of the individual. So people can live their lives as they wish without the government sticking it's nose in. That's an important value of mine as well.
I agree that more local elections means that it's easier for a small group to have real influence and control. But that is a potential problem -- because the small group that takes control can impose more laws that interfere with the lives of others. If each of the U.S. states were to become sovereign nations, then I feel that most of them would impose more restrictive laws than they have currently. Alabama would impose their values more strictly, just as California would impose their values more strictly. And, of course, moving between sovereign nations would run into immigration restrictions, which reduces individual choice.
I'm a liberal living in a liberal California city -- but from going to my local city council meetings, I would be terrified if they were to have absolute control over all laws. While I would have more influence, others would equally have more influence.
From what I see of democracies, it does not appear to me that smaller countries generally have greater personal freedom -- nor greater personal satisfaction. I can't prove that absolutely, but I have at least given a bunch of real-world examples of smaller countries and secessions. I think the U.S. has done very well from it's federal system, and I would not look forward to breaking up the U.S. even if I could freely choose where to live.
Quote from: jhkim;1123944I agree that more local elections means that it's easier for a small group to have real influence and control. But that is a potential problem -- because the small group that takes control can impose more laws that interfere with the lives of others. If each of the U.S. states were to become sovereign nations, then I feel that most of them would impose more restrictive laws than they have currently. Alabama would impose their values more strictly, just as California would impose their values more strictly. And, of course, moving between sovereign nations would run into immigration restrictions, which reduces individual choice.
I'm a liberal living in a liberal California city -- but from going to my local city council meetings, I would be terrified if they were to have absolute control over all laws. While I would have more influence, others would equally have more influence.
Never mind the fact municipal elections tend to have the worst showings as far as percentage of eligible voters goes. Local governments tend to be the most corrupt because no one even pretends to give a fuck.
Quote from: jhkim;1123944My impression is that you're concerned about the tyranny of the majority -- and that you value a government that interferes less with the lives of the individual. So people can live their lives as they wish without the government sticking it's nose in. That's an important value of mine as well.
I agree that more local elections means that it's easier for a small group to have real influence and control. But that is a potential problem -- because the small group that takes control can impose more laws that interfere with the lives of others. If each of the U.S. states were to become sovereign nations, then I feel that most of them would impose more restrictive laws than they have currently. Alabama would impose their values more strictly, just as California would impose their values more strictly. And, of course, moving between sovereign nations would run into immigration restrictions, which reduces individual choice.
I'm a liberal living in a liberal California city -- but from going to my local city council meetings, I would be terrified if they were to have absolute control over all laws. While I would have more influence, others would equally have more influence.
From what I see of democracies, it does not appear to me that smaller countries generally have greater personal freedom -- nor greater personal satisfaction. I can't prove that absolutely, but I have at least given a bunch of real-world examples of smaller countries and secessions. I think the U.S. has done very well from it's federal system, and I would not look forward to breaking up the U.S. even if I could freely choose where to live.
Your impression is wrong. And I'm guessing it's wrong because you seem to be arguing in favor of imposing your personal values on government, and made the assumption I've been doing the same. Which I most decidedly am not. While I do strongly value freedom for myself, part of that value is believing I don't have the right to force that set of beliefs on others. That's why I've been arguing in favor of arranging governments to optimize the fit between what each individual wants in a government, and their actual government. Even if I find many of the resultant governments distasteful.
That's why decentralization is important. That's why a diverse panoply of governments and levels of government is important. A strong regimented central government is about imposing your will on everyone else, which is a grand exercise in hubris, and profoundly immoral. Freedom does need to be baked into the various systems of government to some degree, but that's for practical reasons: We need to allow for value differences between individuals within a governmental unit, and that becomes more important as the group of people represented becomes less homogeneous, which in turn correlates with size. That's why I've been arguing that the federal government should only rule on matters where there is a broad and deep consensus, and secession may be necessary when the fault lines are irreconcilable.
And while nobody claimed that smaller countries have greater personal freedom, let's examine your converse claim, anyway. Your examples of unfree small countries were Eritrea and Syria, who have populations of roughly 6 and 17 million, respectively. Here's the world freedom index:
https://www.worldfreedomindex.com/
Just a glance at the top 10 should demolish your argument. We have go down to #7 to find the first country that's larger than Syria.
The reason I've been ignoring this particular strawman of yours is because I find your definition of small and large ludicrous. Even 5 million is an almost inconceivably huge number of people.
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1123945Never mind the fact municipal elections tend to have the worst showings as far as percentage of eligible voters goes. Local governments tend to be the most corrupt because no one even pretends to give a fuck.
Because they have almost no power, so nobody cares.
Whereas the state and federal governments do have great power, but when you're one of a hundreds of thousand voting for a Rep, up to a couple tens of millions voting for a Senator, or one of a hundred million or more voting for the Prez, your vote is basically worthless. The chance your voice ends up mattering is comparable to winning the lottery. So voter turnout is dismal, even at the national level.
Do you know when voter turnout was high, sometimes reaching 90% of eligible voters? Back in the 18th century, when local municipalities had real power and voting actually mattered.
A nation divided will not stand. We can pretend otherwise, but that's the future. Collapse and/or secession is America's fate unless one side of the Culture War ideology crushes the other and unifies the nation. As demographics are our destiny, I don't see the Right winning this war unless the mass of Gen Z demands a return to American values...and I don't see that happening.
Quote from: Pat;1123954And while nobody claimed that smaller countries have greater personal freedom, let's examine your converse claim, anyway. Your examples of unfree small countries were Eritrea and Syria, who have populations of roughly 6 and 17 million, respectively. Here's the world freedom index:
https://www.worldfreedomindex.com/
Just a glance at the top 10 should demolish your argument. We have go down to #7 to find the first country that's larger than Syria.
My claim is that they are uncorrelated. As I said in post #1074, "
The smaller local government is just as likely to be tyrannical and repressive of the individual citizens."
I appreciate the data - I think it helps clarify. Here is a scatter plot of the freedom index rank vs log of population from the World Freedom Index that you cited:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4201[/ATTACH]
Ref: https://www.meta-chart.com/share/freedom-index-vs-population
Sources: https://www.worldfreedomindex.com/ and https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/
The vertical is log population, while the horizontal is Freedom Index rank (from 1 to 169). The very wide variation overshadows any trend, which is pretty close to flat.
Quote from: Pat;1123954That's why a diverse panoply of governments and levels of government is important. A strong regimented central government is about imposing your will on everyone else, which is a grand exercise in hubris, and profoundly immoral. Freedom does need to be baked into the various systems of government to some degree, but that's for practical reasons: We need to allow for value differences between individuals within a governmental unit, and that becomes more important as the group of people represented becomes less homogeneous, which in turn correlates with size. That's why I've been arguing that the federal government should only rule on matters where there is a broad and deep consensus, and secession may be necessary when the fault lines are irreconcilable.
It's not clear to me how much we're disagreeing here. I would agree that government should only rule on matters where there is a broad and deep consensus. But I would say that inherently, any government is about imposing your will on everyone else. The government of a small-territory democracy like Cyprus is no more or less inherently moral than a large-territory democracy like the United States.
To my mind, the choice between small-territory and large-territory is a practical one -- which can deliver better on making people free and satisfied. I'm not opposed to small-territory countries like Cyprus or Lithuania, but it seems to me that most people are not clamoring to be in such countries.
Quote from: jhkim;1123969[ATTACH=CONFIG]4201[/ATTACH]
Ref: https://www.meta-chart.com/share/freedom-index-vs-population
Sources: https://www.worldfreedomindex.com/ and https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/
The vertical is log population, while the horizontal is Freedom Index rank (from 1 to 169). The very wide variation overshadows any trend, which is pretty close to flat.
Good find, or did you create it? I agree there doesn't seem to be any real correlation between size and freedom, but weren't you arguing that Balkanization is bad for liberty? The data suggests that size doesn't matter, when it comes to freedom.
Quote from: jhkim;1123969It's not clear to me how much we're disagreeing here. I would agree that government should only rule on matters where there is a broad and deep consensus. But I would say that inherently, any government is about imposing your will on everyone else. The government of a small-territory democracy like Cyprus is no more or less inherently moral than a large-territory democracy like the United States.
To my mind, the choice between small-territory and large-territory is a practical one -- which can deliver better on making people free and satisfied. I'm not opposed to small-territory countries like Cyprus or Lithuania, but it seems to me that most people are not clamoring to be in such countries.
I think you're stuck on the idea of nations, and defining 1.2 million people as "small". I'm talking about different levels of governance, from personal choice, to familiies, neighborhoods, local or municipal governments, county governments, states (in the US sense), nation-states, region superstates, all the way up to international standards/treaties. The point I'm making is government works best when there is a high degree of consensus on its rulings, and it's harder to get consensus about many things at the highest levels. That's why international laws tend to be focused on things like mutually acceptable trade standards, or ways to define territories or broker disputes, because it's going to be impossible to get a consensus on something like libel. And while a nation should have a shared dream or mythology that provides some basic ideals and standards, any except the most homogeneous still need room for variations in the population, for instance religious differences. It's when there are real differences and no real consensus is possible (abortion being the classic US example), that the decisions should be pushed down to lower levels of government. And the more variation we have at the more local levels, the more likely it is people will be able to find a place they find acceptable.
Quote from: jhkim;1123868Taking the issue of marijuana legalization -- I'd argue that letting each locality ban substances as they see fit leads to less freedom of personal choice. If Alabama can declare marijuana illegal, and Utah can declare alcohol illegal, and New York can declare trans-fats illegal, etc. -- then the result is less freedom for individuals to choose what they want. Having federal law and a strong Constitution means there is a higher bar for making given substances illegal.
Structurally though there is a limit to how small the locality can be, given state power. States certainly can preempt cities and counties from enacting laws that are contrary to state law (or they can structure themselves as they can).
Federal law can certainly set bars, but there isn't much difference between deciding if something is legal or illegal. It allows states to have distinctively different laws and cultures. Uniformity of law isn't always going to be seen as 'freedom.'
I guess though with the weight of population, that also doesn't stop those fleeing one state to overcome the desires of the preexisting population. Some of us up north are starting to look like very poor reflections of California.
Quote from: jhkim;1123969[ATTACH=CONFIG]4201[/ATTACH]
Ref: https://www.meta-chart.com/share/freedom-index-vs-population
Sources: https://www.worldfreedomindex.com/ and https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/
The vertical is log population, while the horizontal is Freedom Index rank (from 1 to 169). The very wide variation overshadows any trend, which is pretty close to flat.
Quote from: Pat;1123970Good find, or did you create it? I agree there doesn't seem to be any real correlation between size and freedom, but weren't you arguing that Balkanization is bad for liberty? The data suggests that size doesn't matter, when it comes to freedom.
I created it from the source tables using a quick Perl script. I argued that balkanization *could be* bad for liberty. Many times secession is justified by the argument that seceding will make the people of the region more free, by removing the impositions of the central government. But I'm arguing that on average, it does not increase freedom. How we got started on this was your comment in Post #1070,
Quote from: Pat;1123776If it hardens, secession wouldn't be a bad thing. That's the problem with a central government that imposes lots rules on everyone. Inevitably, more and more of the rules will become intolerable, and the only option is to fight to get your preferences imposed on everyone else instead. And the more everyone separates into different tribes, the more it accelerates. Devolving those rules to the regional, state, county, or municipal level allows local preferences to be respected, and reduces the stress on the system. And the ultimate version of that is breaking up, say allowing California and Texas to become separate nation-states.
It seems to me that you were implying that secession would be positive, because it would get rid of the central government imposing rules on everyone. However, I was countering that secession is at best a crap-shoot of whether you will get less imposing rules.
Quote from: Pat;1123970I think you're stuck on the idea of nations, and defining 1.2 million people as "small". I'm talking about different levels of governance, from personal choice, to familiies, neighborhoods, local or municipal governments, county governments, states (in the US sense), nation-states, region superstates, all the way up to international standards/treaties. The point I'm making is government works best when there is a high degree of consensus on its rulings, and it's harder to get consensus about many things at the highest levels. That's why international laws tend to be focused on things like mutually acceptable trade standards, or ways to define territories or broker disputes, because it's going to be impossible to get a consensus on something like libel. And while a nation should have a shared dream or mythology that provides some basic ideals and standards, any except the most homogeneous still need room for variations in the population, for instance religious differences. It's when there are real differences and no real consensus is possible (abortion being the classic US example), that the decisions should be pushed down to lower levels of government. And the more variation we have at the more local levels, the more likely it is people will be able to find a place they find acceptable.
I think this is talking past each other. I was talking in the context of secession earlier. If we're just talking about whether state and local government should exist -- I agree that there is a place for state and local government.
As for abortion, I don't think there's any clear solution. For one, I don't think there is any consensus even locally. Opinions vary from 75-25 to 25-75 from state to state, but I would say 25% is still significant dissent, not consensus. Further, for those who are morally opposed to abortion, it's not like they are fine with millions of abortions happening as long as it isn't in their town. They want an end to the practice of abortion in general. Likewise, for those who see it as women's rights over their own bodies, they will not be satisfied with having women in some areas unable to have those rights.
Feels like you're ignoring what I've said.
Quote from: jhkim;1124035I created it from the source tables using a quick Perl script. I argued that balkanization *could be* bad for liberty. Many times secession is justified by the argument that seceding will make the people of the region more free, by removing the impositions of the central government. But I'm arguing that on average, it does not increase freedom.
I certainly never argued that it increased freedom, which I've pointed out in every post.
Quote from: jhkim;1124035It seems to me that you were implying that secession would be positive, because it would get rid of the central government imposing rules on everyone. However, I was countering that secession is at best a crap-shoot of whether you will get less imposing rules.
Again, never made that argument. I haven't argued even once that breaking up states would lead to less rules overall.
Quote from: jhkim;1124035I think this is talking past each other. I was talking in the context of secession earlier. If we're just talking about whether state and local government should exist -- I agree that there is a place for state and local government.
I brought up succession as a possible solution to hypothetical extreme, and pointed out that in the US it's typically considered inconceivable, when there's no rational reason for that to be the case. Your response seems to have nothing to do with that.
Quote from: jhkim;1124035As for abortion, I don't think there's any clear solution. For one, I don't think there is any consensus even locally. Opinions vary from 75-25 to 25-75 from state to state, but I would say 25% is still significant dissent, not consensus. Further, for those who are morally opposed to abortion, it's not like they are fine with millions of abortions happening as long as it isn't in their town. They want an end to the practice of abortion in general. Likewise, for those who see it as women's rights over their own bodies, they will not be satisfied with having women in some areas unable to have those rights.
I already covered that, don't really feel like repeating myself.
Quote from: Pat;1124043Feels like you're ignoring what I've said.
Sorry about that - it's not intended. I'll take some time and reread your posts, and try again later.
Quote from: jhkim;1124045Sorry about that - it's not intended. I'll take some time and reread your posts, and try again later.
Thanks. What I'm arguing is for decentralization. States require a degree of unanimity, or they start to tear themselves apart, which is a natural limit on the types of laws a particular level of government should try to institute. These fracture points are best resolved by pushing them down the political ladder, which provides more options to people who are willing to move, and makes it more likely they'll be able to influence the political process and thus create a result they consider more favorable. This provides insulation for social conflicts, because even if you don't agree with a law, and want it imposed on everyone (like most people involved in the abortion debate), being able to remove yourself from its aegis makes it less pressing. We're more concerned about ourselves, our family, and our neighbors than people in a different town, state, or country, after all. This is in stark contrast to freedom as you're using it, which seems to involve imposing your views on everyone else, instead of allowing people to seek out or demand the government they desire, whether or not you think it's "free". The succession comment was an attempt to put what's effectively a taboo topic back on the table. It's not some grand claim, and I didn't argue for any specific cases, I just said this is an option we should think about and not reflexively reject. Because that's exactly how it's been treated in public discourse, since the Civil War. Note small to me means individuals, families, neighborhoods, and (maybe) local governments. Most people would agree that even House districts are far too big for effective representation, and states are behemoths.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1123957A nation divided will not stand. We can pretend otherwise, but that's the future. Collapse and/or secession is America's fate unless one side of the Culture War ideology crushes the other and unifies the nation. As demographics are our destiny, I don't see the Right winning this war unless the mass of Gen Z demands a return to American values...and I don't see that happening.
If by war you mean who outvotes who, no the right can not win. However...a disenfranchised right that decides to use more forceful means.....then I think its an asskicking and a capitulation to separation. Especially once the right starts to see how immigration and refugee resettlement and welfare distribution has been weaponized against them. At some point there will be a demand for reciprocity and a return on investment. At that point some sort of charismatic hard line type comes along.....and we get blood and fire. I hope cooler heads, see that and plan accordingly. The big issue I have, is leftists already see that is where its headed. The gun debate from their perspective has cranked up a good bit, because they know, you need a TRUE monopoly on force to carry out a totalitarian government.
A little off topic, but watching the reaction to this on all sides might prove interesting
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1242692346971451393
EDIT: The tweet has been l\blocked from public view but it was related to this:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/woman-accuses-joe-biden-of-sexual-assault
Quote from: CarlD.;1124958https://www.dailywire.com/news/woman-accuses-joe-biden-of-sexual-assault
Biden the rapist? This woman's story doesn't pass the sniff test!
Sleepy JoJo fingered her in 1993...and now she's telling her story 27 years later when he's
coincidentally becoming the Democrats' dementia patient, I mean, nominee.
How odd she didn't "remember" to go to the press during 2008 or 2012. Oh wait, the article says she's a supporter of Bernie Sanders.
So...a Bernie Sanders supporter who worked for JoJo in 1993 suddenly goes all PoundMeToo when her candidate is losing his nomination chance? Sounds totally legit to me! Believe All Wahmens!!
Of course, if the DNC did want to dump Dementia Boy to hand the nomination to Andrew Cuomo, this hitjob might do the trick.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1124966Biden the rapist? This woman's story doesn't pass the sniff test!
Sniff test, I see what you did!
Quote from: Shasarak;1124972Sniff test, I see what you did!
smells like fish, tastes like....fish. :D
Quote from: CarlD.;1124958A little off topic, but watching the reaction to this on all sides might prove interesting
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1242692346971451393
EDIT: The tweet has been l\blocked from public view but it was related to this:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/woman-accuses-joe-biden-of-sexual-assault
The thread where this came up on rpg.net's Tang was locked without a single red word.
Quote from: CarlD.;1125011The thread where this came up on rpg.net's Tang was locked without a single red word.
Imagine that.
Quote from: CarlD.;1125011The thread where this came up on rpg.net's Tang was locked without a single red word.
That actually surprises me! I thought their "Believe All Wahmens" oath and devotion to Bernie would be stronger than goosestepping behind the DNC's anointing of Dementia JoJo.
I've seen clips of Biden's recent interviews and town halls and his family should be up for elder abuse. It's hard to have fun laughing at the dude because its painfully obvious JoJo isn't mentally okay and we're watching his cognitive abilities slip away.
As for the Biden being Mr. Finger Bang, I so deeply question the timing of these allegations, but I can't deny JoJo is a creepy dude with a long, documented history of making young women and girls uncomfortable in public.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1124966Biden the rapist? This woman's story doesn't pass the sniff test!
Sleepy JoJo fingered her in 1993...and now she's telling her story 27 years later when he's coincidentally becoming the Democrats' dementia patient, I mean, nominee.
How odd she didn't "remember" to go to the press during 2008 or 2012. Oh wait, the article says she's a supporter of Bernie Sanders.
So...a Bernie Sanders supporter who worked for JoJo in 1993 suddenly goes all PoundMeToo when her candidate is losing his nomination chance? Sounds totally legit to me! Believe All Wahmens!!
Of course, if the DNC did want to dump Dementia Boy to hand the nomination to Andrew Cuomo, this hitjob might do the trick.
The issue isn't whether or not the allegation is true. It is that yet again it highlights the utter hypocrisy of the #METOO movement and their leftist supporters.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4223[/ATTACH]
Quote from: CarlD.;1125011The thread where this came up on rpg.net's Tang was locked without a single red word.
Yet more hypocrisy.
Quote from: Gagarth;1125038It is that yet again it highlights the utter hypocrisy of the #METOO movement and their leftist supporters.
So you're saying it's a day that ends in Y.
BTW, Reason.com has an article titled "Joe Biden Said He Believes All Women. Does He Believe Tara Reade?". Apparently, JoJo was all-in against Kavanaugh...
Quote from: Gagarth;1125038The issue isn't whether or not the allegation is true.
Isn't that scary though? We live in Clown World where Biden's due process doesn't even matter.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1125091BTW, Reason.com has an article titled "Joe Biden Said He Believes All Women. Does He Believe Tara Reade?". Apparently, JoJo was all-in against Kavanaugh...
If we're going to be consistent and not use sexual allegations as partisan political tactics we need to be consistent in how they're appli-EHARHARHARHARHARHARHARHARHARHARHARHARHARHARHARHARHAR *breathe* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I almost made it!
Quote from: Spinachcat;1125091So you're saying it's a day that ends in Y.
BTW, Reason.com has an article titled "Joe Biden Said He Believes All Women. Does He Believe Tara Reade?". Apparently, JoJo was all-in against Kavanaugh...
Isn't that scary though? We live in Clown World where Biden's due process doesn't even matter.
I am all for due process, #METOO and their allies aren't and that's the hypocrisy.
Personally, I think MeToo was a huge mistake
Quote from: Doc Sammy;1125217Personally, I think MeToo was a huge mistake
Me too.
Fucking delicious.
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/second-metoo-thread-and-biden.861343/
Apparently you're either a rapist or a racist.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1125279Fucking delicious.
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/second-metoo-thread-and-biden.861343/
Apparently you're either a rapist or a racist.
From that opening, that thread seems more like the Mods' version of Speed Trap than anything, to lure out the insufficiently pure of thought and mind. The reactions so far are pretty much what's expect: The Witchfinder has pointed at you. You have no choice but silently and hmbly accept whatever punish deemed proper because we BELIEVE THE WOMAN!!!!!!!111
Everything Biden is comedy gold.
That RPG.net thread was just glorious. I'm surprised the BernieBros aren't hammering this story and Biden's dementia everywhere to affect the rest of the DNC primaries. It's Sanders only chance now.
I wonder how much, if any impact this will have on the Tang lynch mob, except maybe giving them a new target: the 'zebra' that posted it.
https://medium.com/@eddiekrassenstein/evidence-casts-doubt-on-tara-reades-sexual-assault-allegations-of-joe-biden-e4cb3ee38460
Edit: Not much, of the staff has anything to with it. They set off the Speed Trap and locked after gathering some names punishment.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1125279Fucking delicious.
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/second-metoo-thread-and-biden.861343/
Apparently you're either a rapist or a racist.
So, am I correct in guessing that they were all aboard the #metoo train, but started jumping off when Biden was accused?
Quote from: Brad;1125330So, am I correct in guessing that they were all aboard the #metoo train, but started jumping off when Biden was accused?
Dunno. I haven't logged into my account in years, so I don't know the full story.
I'm
guessing from the TT thread that it's a dustup between #meetoos and people who will still support Biden because hey, it's different when someone I like is accused...
There also seems to be some racism factor. Not sure what that's about.
The Ban train is rolling right on time. Even superheroes aren't safe :D
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/share-what-you-are-doing-to-try-and-help-your-community-during-the-pandemic.860965/post-23172466
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/share-what-you-are-doing-to-try-and-help-your-community-during-the-pandemic.860965/post-23172510
And yeah, the Biden sexual assault thread is a trap, step on inch from the Right Opinion, get Modhammered (and probably "on their radar" from that point on. )
The Mod staffers are something else. Where did they find these guys and why to the member put up with their shit? Mommy/Daddy issues or what? "Bring your A game"? Its a forum for shooting the shit, not a college level debate competition. And I love that last bit, its just sums up the welcoming inclusive enviornment that entire infraction froeum/ public pillory square illustrates
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/qwaha-xahn-receives-a-%F0%9F%9A%AB-seven-day-ban.861243/
Edit: If nothing else the Biden sexual assault thread relives one of any thoughts that the Forum Admin (Shannon?) isn't completely on board with that's happening there
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/discussion-thread-for-the-biden-sexual-assault-allegations.861412/
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/discussion-thread-for-the-biden-sexual-assault-allegations.861412/post-23176268
What kind of fucked up little asylum turned gated community are they trying to engineer?
That thread was funny. Spidey seemed like an alright guy to me. I have to admit I got caught up reading some of those threads yesterday; they're like a train wreck you just can't look away from. Good thing I had to go to work...
Quote from: CarlD.;1125306I wonder how much, if any impact this will have on the Tang lynch mob, except maybe giving them a new target: the 'zebra' that posted it.
https://medium.com/@eddiekrassenstein/evidence-casts-doubt-on-tara-reades-sexual-assault-allegations-of-joe-biden-e4cb3ee38460
Edit: Not much, of the staff has anything to with it. They set off the Speed Trap and locked after gathering some names punishment.
Well well, if it isn't the huckster brother duo the Krassensteins! I was wondering where they'd wandered off to after getting kicked off Twitter.
QuoteIn 2016 I dropped all my social circle who voted Trump. Most were registered Republicans who voted Party because, to their mind, anything else was a loss. When challenged on the fact that they'd be voting for a proven bigot, misogynist, lousy businessman, non-Christian, cheat, liar, et al, and that if their conscience bothered them they could vote for someone else or not at all, they uniformly said that even if all that were true, it was better than the Dems winning.
I don't think those people have any actual friends...my buddy got into an argument with me a couple days ago about CORONAVIRUS. He pretty much hates Trump and didn't like the way it was being handled. I told him he was a fuckface and to shut up. Last night we were trying to come up with a new band name in the eventual post-apocalyptic environment. I do not get the sense whatsoever that any of those RPG.net people would ever associate with someone they disagree with, and that quote pretty much confirms it.
Not sure if I missed it, but I'd also be interested in what they have to say about Johnny Depp's case.
Quote from: CarlD.;1125337The Ban train is rolling right on time. Even superheroes aren't safe :D
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/share-what-you-are-doing-to-try-and-help-your-community-during-the-pandemic.860965/post-23172466
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/share-what-you-are-doing-to-try-and-help-your-community-during-the-pandemic.860965/post-23172510
And yeah, the Biden sexual assault thread is a trap, step on inch from the Right Opinion, get Modhammered (and probably "on their radar" from that point on. )
The Mod staffers are something else. Where did they find these guys and why to the member put up with their shit? Mommy/Daddy issues or what? "Bring your A game"? Its a forum for shooting the shit, not a college level debate competition. And I love that last bit, its just sums up the welcoming inclusive enviornment that entire infraction froeum/ public pillory square illustrates
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/qwaha-xahn-receives-a-%F0%9F%9A%AB-seven-day-ban.861243/
Edit: If nothing else the Biden sexual assault thread relives one of any thoughts that the Forum Admin (Shannon?) isn't completely on board with that's happening there
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/discussion-thread-for-the-biden-sexual-assault-allegations.861412/
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/discussion-thread-for-the-biden-sexual-assault-allegations.861412/post-23176268
What kind of fucked up little asylum turned gated community are they trying to engineer?
Curiosity got the better of me, so I went to take a peek. I don't have an account there and kept getting a login prompt, so I went to the top-level Infractions forum to find the banning posts. There's been 20 bannings of some flavor or another since the Qwaha Xahn banning 4 days ago. I thought I was in the wrong place because I had to scroll down so far.
Jesus.
Quote from: Ghostmaker;1125381Well well, if it isn't the huckster brother duo the Krassensteins! I was wondering where they'd wandered off to after getting kicked off Twitter.
I'm not familiar with this incident, can I get a summary?
Quote from: Trond;1125392Not sure if I missed it, but I'd also be interested in what they have to say about Johnny Depp's case.
Damn, I'm out of the loop. What did Depp do/who accused him of doing what?
Quote from: CarlD.;1125396I'm not familiar with this incident, can I get a summary?
Sockpuppeting (operating multiple accounts) and purchasing account interactions (which means they were boosting their signal with SE Asia server farms).
Quote from: CarlD.;1125397Damn, I'm out of the loop. What did Depp do/who accused him of doing what?
Johnny Depp was first accused of domestic violence by the media/mob, because his ex Amber Heard, after the breakup, took to media talking about how women should "speak up about abuse" etc etc. He almost certainly lost some film jobs because of this. Then, one tape recording after another, plus witnesses, are now indicating that SHE was the abuser, and she's lying about the abuse. She basically admits it in a recording. She seems to be extremely manipulative, but then nothing is settled yet. He is now suing her for defamation.
Quote from: CarlD.;1125397Damn, I'm out of the loop. What did Depp do/who accused him of doing what?
Short version, after Amber Heard (his wife) accused Depp of abusing her (https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/02/26/johnny-depp-says-amber-heard-lied-domestic-abuse-uk-court/4879486002/), she has been accused of being abusive towards Depp. (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7947733/Amber-Heard-admits-hitting-ex-husband-Johnny-Depp-pelting-pots-pans-tape.html)
My money is on Tang siding with Amber, because vagina trumps penis.
Ok, is this place managing to get weirder? (https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/how-many-female-game-characters-and-female-literature-characters-and-female-comics-characters-are-there-in-this-world.861598/) Its becoming my primary Lurk for LOLz site*. Do they just sit around think
'enlightened' thoughts all day?
QuoteHow many female game characters and female literature characters and female comics characters are there in this world?
Anyone care to Guess?
QuoteMore than four, I can tell you that.
QuoteToo many to count but still disproportionately few compared to men, and even less if you count those that have any agency or inner life.
* That's sort of a half truth there are some threads there I'd gladly participate in but it would likely result in my account's almost immediate ban; and that asylum that think its a gated community is too rich a vein of comedy and WTFs to give up just yet. I find myself with more time to spend inside lately. :D
Quote from: CarlD.;1125475Ok, is this place managing to get weirder? (https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/how-many-female-game-characters-and-female-literature-characters-and-female-comics-characters-are-there-in-this-world.861598/) Its becoming my primary Lurk for LOLz site*. Do they just sit around think 'enlightened' thoughts all day?
Non-enlightened thoughts are thoughtcrime
Quote from: Trond;1125401Johnny Depp was first accused of domestic violence by the media/mob, because his ex Amber Heard, after the breakup, took to media talking about how women should "speak up about abuse" etc etc. He almost certainly lost some film jobs because of this. Then, one tape recording after another, plus witnesses, are now indicating that SHE was the abuser, and she's lying about the abuse. She basically admits it in a recording. She seems to be extremely manipulative, but then nothing is settled yet. He is now suing her for defamation.
Hmph, I curious about the Tang reaction too. Will they "BELIEVE THE DUDE!"?
Quote from: Ghostmaker;1125381Well well, if it isn't the huckster brother duo the Krassensteins! I was wondering where they'd wandered off to after getting kicked off Twitter.
Quote from: Ghostmaker;1125400Sockpuppeting (operating multiple accounts) and purchasing account interactions (which means they were boosting their signal with SE Asia server farms).
Damn, would you consider the rebuttal full of crap then or that it may be accurate but should be taken with a grain (or more) of salt?
Female characters and female authors are overly dominant in the mystery and romance genres, which are top selling book and TV genres. RPG.net should fight that lack of equity.
Quote from: CarlD.;1125475Ok, is this place managing to get weirder? (https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/how-many-female-game-characters-and-female-literature-characters-and-female-comics-characters-are-there-in-this-world.861598/) Its becoming my primary Lurk for LOLz site*. Do they just sit around think 'enlightened' thoughts all day?
* That's sort of a half truth there are some threads there I'd gladly participate in but it would likely result in my account's almost immediate ban; and that asylum that think its a gated community is too rich a vein of comedy and WTFs to give up just yet. I find myself with more time to spend inside lately. :D
I've read through the thread and.....wow...just wow. Worst. Idea. EVER.
It's as if these weirdos think that ANY idea that pops into little craniums is a good idea.
No. Just because it's "original" doesn't mean it's good.
Also just because you're "unique" doesn't mean you're useful.
RPG.net: useless and bad.
[video=youtube_share;gOQ0W8kyiyI]https://youtu.be/gOQ0W8kyiyI[/youtube]
Quote from: CarlD.;1125475Ok, is this place managing to get weirder? (https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/how-many-female-game-characters-and-female-literature-characters-and-female-comics-characters-are-there-in-this-world.861598/) Its becoming my primary Lurk for LOLz site*. Do they just sit around think 'enlightened' thoughts all day?
* That's sort of a half truth there are some threads there I'd gladly participate in but it would likely result in my account's almost immediate ban; and that asylum that think its a gated community is too rich a vein of comedy and WTFs to give up just yet. I find myself with more time to spend inside lately. :D
RPG.net tangency doesn't simply have SJW-leanings. It's a radical feminist forum. I'm sure they'd be happy to admit that at this point.
Quote from: Trond;1125631RPG.net tangency doesn't simply have SJW-leanings. It's a radical feminist forum. I'm sure they'd be happy to admit that at this point.
Except for TERFs
Quote from: Trond;1125392Not sure if I missed it, but I'd also be interested in what they have to say about Johnny Depp's case.
Well????
Anyone wants to report on what RPG.net says about this??
The way Amber KNOWS how the system is actually stacked against men (but then what happens when the man catches her saying this on tape?) Calling the story "juicy" is an understatement :D. Man, after I heard rumors that Amber Heard may have pooped on Depp's bed out of spite....
Or are they avoiding the whole topic like the plague?
Quote from: Trond;1126315Well????
Anyone wants to report on what RPG.net says about this??
The way Amber KNOWS how the system is actually stacked against men (but then what happens when the man catches her saying this on tape?) Calling the story "juicy" is an understatement :D. Man, after I heard rumors that Amber Heard may have pooped on Depp's bed out of spite....
Or are they avoiding the whole topic like the plague?
Greetings!
I think Amber Heard is fucking nuts, and likely a scheming, greedy, poisonous snake. There are many, many women out there that are like this. Utterly self-interested, solipsistic, narcissistic, greedy, entitled and vengeful. You see the sweeter side of women when they divorce you. *laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Anyone wants to report on what RPG.net says about this??
The way Amber KNOWS how the system is actually stacked against men (but then what happens when the man catches her saying this on tape?) Calling the story "juicy" is an understatement :D. Man, after I heard rumors that Amber Heard may have pooped on Depp's bed out of spite....
Or are they avoiding the whole topic like the plague?[/QUOTE]
The last I saw it discussed was in late March and things were leaning more Depp being the abusive injured party. Then the the Biden story distracted things and Mod finger wagging post seemed to unofficially shut down the thread, for the most part as the couldn't talk about the latest Accusation That Must Be Believed*.
*Thi (https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/390328192696713216/698517138658295848/20191101edhoc-a.png?width=696&height=468)s pretty much sums up the reaction to that story. Total CFS
Quote from: CarlD.;1126487Anyone wants to report on what RPG.net says about this??
The way Amber KNOWS how the system is actually stacked against men (but then what happens when the man catches her saying this on tape?) Calling the story "juicy" is an understatement :D. Man, after I heard rumors that Amber Heard may have pooped on Depp's bed out of spite....
Or are they avoiding the whole topic like the plague?
The last I saw it discussed was in late March and things were leaning more Depp being the abusive injured party. Then the the Biden story distracted things and Mod finger wagging post seemed to unofficially shut down the thread, for the most part as the couldn't talk about the latest Accusation That Must Be Believed*.
*Thi (https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/390328192696713216/698517138658295848/20191101edhoc-a.png?width=696&height=468)s pretty much sums up the reaction to that story. Total CFS
Thanks! I think most people know to stay away from stories that don't fit the official feminist narrative. I remember that any such argument was met with "what about the men" "concern trolling" and bans.
Quote from: Trond;1125631RPG.net tangency doesn't simply have SJW-leanings. It's a radical feminist forum. I'm sure they'd be happy to admit that at this point.
Absolutely and more besides, there is definitely an agenda in that odd little asylum that thinks its a gated community. The Moderation is like some combination of nannies, guards and self appointed counselors with the benefit of being effectively unquestionable, accountable to no one (well to one person who appears to be large absent and complicit) and self selecting. Tang (well the whole board) is like a fucked up recreation of the Stanford Prison experiment and an Animal Farm LARP except the people in it largely seem to love it.
The usual response to Mod BS is "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" Even a self proclaimed Far-Left/Neo Communist power to the people type seems more than happy to be walked on by what amounts to unpaid glorified Internet Janitors that desperately want to be corrupt cops just to have the 'safety' Tangency offers him.
And all is for "The Greater Good", of course.
All sites have their issues. Hell, this site has its issues, but that place has really gone nuts. Intellectual Inbreeding, I guess.
Quote from: Trond;1126492Thanks! I think most people know to stay away from stories that don't fit the official feminist narrative. I remember that any such argument was met with "what about the men" "concern trolling" and bans.
Don't forget "
Thread Crap" Yeah, the made up terminology that means whatever they need it to mean at the time to punish and purge the "bad fits" from their number as part of whatever bizarre social engineering project they're trying to perform. The Militant Ultra Feminist aspect of their sculpted board culture really reared its head during a thread where posters were putting up sections of S.C..U.M manifesto and when some members complained they were answered with those old chestnuts "Can't you take a joke" and "Don't suppress their rightful anger" that, if the situation had been revered, would earned perma-bans and numerous collective freak outs that could be seen from the moon.
The Joe Biden sexual assault allegation have finally made an appearance in the big time media, and evidently Ms. Reade filed a police report thought the statute of limitation has elapsed.
Quote from: CarlD.;1126643The Joe Biden sexual assault allegation have finally made an appearance in the big time media, and evidently Ms. Reade filed a police report thought the statute of limitation has elapsed.
Believing the women means giving credence and beginning the investigation, not dismissing them out of hand and ignoring them. Documenting accusations can help determine a pattern of abuse (as in the Catholic priest abuse scandal). Taking it seriously doesn't mean that every accusation is true, and what is 'right' following an accusation is highly dependent on the circumstances. Apologizing and correcting behavior might be appropriate for 'smelling someone's hair' but it wouldn't be for rape - jail time is much more appropriate in that case.
Quote from: New York TimesNo other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1126738Believing the women means giving credence and beginning the investigation, not dismissing them out of hand and ignoring them.
Why limit this only to women? Is this more a universal principle of believing all victims? Well, how do you know who is a victim or not initially? Wouldn't then the person being falsely accused be the victim of abuse? Innocent until proven guilty.
I understand SocJus doesn't see a bias-free equal principle justice system as desirable, as its morality revolves around a complex floating set of power structures based on race, preference towards collectivism and conformity, and historical grudges, but I explained it to those, not in the know.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1126738Believing the women means giving credence and beginning the investigation, not dismissing them out of hand and ignoring them. Documenting accusations can help determine a pattern of abuse (as in the Catholic priest abuse scandal). Taking it seriously doesn't mean that every accusation is true, and what is 'right' following an accusation is highly dependent on the circumstances. Apologizing and correcting behavior might be appropriate for 'smelling someone's hair' but it wouldn't be for rape - jail time is much more appropriate in that case.
QuoteOriginally Posted by New York Times
No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.
Actually, what was originally posted by the NYT was this:
QuoteNo other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.
But, you know, that doesn't look so good so they quietly changed it.
ninja'd by rgalex
Quote from: rgalex;1126797Actually, what was originally posted by the NYT was this:
But, you know, that doesn't look so good so they quietly changed it.
Setting aside the new allegations for a second, I say let Biden do his hugging and kissing (well, maybe not right now). I remember Bill Maher suddenly had to stop hugging women on his show (he's even stopped a couple of women saying "we don't do that anymore"). This sort of paranoia is making the world a colder place if you ask me.
Quote from: rgalex;1126797Actually, what was originally posted by the NYT was this:
But, you know, that doesn't look so good so they quietly changed it.
:D
I think the allegations against Biden are suspect, but then I thought the same about the allegations against Kavanaugh. It all smells strongly of political motivation.
I do think that the Left should walk their talk, and disavow Biden because, believe whamen! At least someone who follows through on accusations against their "side" is being consistent, even if it means potentially sinking all their candidates.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1126815:D
I think the allegations against Biden are suspect, but then I thought the same about the allegations against Kavanaugh. It all smells strongly of political motivation.
I do think that the Left should walk their talk, and disavow Biden because, believe whamen! At least someone who follows through on accusations against their "side" is being consistent, even if it means potentially sinking all their candidates.
The woke left is like the hyper-religious right. It's not the whole bunch of them, and not everyone agrees with them, but sometimes they get too powerful.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1126738Believing the women means giving credence and beginning the investigation, not dismissing them out of hand and ignoring them. Documenting accusations can help determine a pattern of abuse (as in the Catholic priest abuse scandal). Taking it seriously doesn't mean that every accusation is true, and what is 'right' following an accusation is highly dependent on the circumstances. Apologizing and correcting behavior might be appropriate for 'smelling someone's hair' but it wouldn't be for rape - jail time is much more appropriate in that case.
The #believethewoman hashtag is a strong and gender specific imperative. Hyperbole can do significant harm to any argument. The passion of the speaker doesn't trump the rationality of the listener.
It's gonna be fun when Dementia JoJo gets asked about Tara Reade and he accidentally tells the truth! You know Trump is going to invite her to the debates!
Quote from: Trond;1126812Setting aside the new allegations for a second, I say let Biden do his hugging and kissing (well, maybe not right now). I remember Bill Maher suddenly had to stop hugging women on his show (he's even stopped a couple of women saying "we don't do that anymore"). This sort of paranoia is making the world a colder place if you ask me.
Remember how Richard Dawson would kiss women on the cheek in a gentlemanly fashion, on Family Feud?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1126738Believing the women means giving credence and beginning the investigation, not dismissing them out of hand and ignoring them. Documenting accusations can help determine a pattern of abuse (as in the Catholic priest abuse scandal). Taking it seriously doesn't mean that every accusation is true, and what is 'right' following an accusation is highly dependent on the circumstances. Apologizing and correcting behavior might be appropriate for 'smelling someone's hair' but it wouldn't be for rape - jail time is much more appropriate in that case.
All right, I didn't argue against this in the post you quoted so I'm not sure why you quoted. I have seen several people that are ready to hang Biden and call for him to withdraw over Reade's accusation with investigation or much supporting evidence. So far there a singe woman alleging a sexual assault against Biden who is known as Tara Reade, Alexandra Tara Reade, Tara Reade Moulton, Tara Moulton, and Alexandra Tara McCabe) appears to be a very disturbed individual whose claims appear incredible as she's made similar claims against Vladimir Putin and has an online record of praising Joe Biden for strongly protecting women that were made in the same time frame as the seemingly invented false claims.
But there are allot of people willing to call him GUILTY based on her accusation alone and use the Believe the Woman catch phrase to justify their almost vigilante mentality. That's what I (and I think others, Left and Right wing) find unsettling about the whole thing not the notion that charge of sexual misconduct (or any criminality, for that matter) ought to be taken seriously.
Quote from: CarlD.;1126983All right, I didn't argue against this in the post you quoted so I'm not sure why you quoted. I have seen several people that are ready to hang Biden and call for him to withdraw over Reade's accusation with investigation or much supporting evidence. So far there a singe woman alleging a sexual assault against Biden who is known as Tara Reade, Alexandra Tara Reade, Tara Reade Moulton, Tara Moulton, and Alexandra Tara McCabe) appears to be a very disturbed individual whose claims appear incredible as she's made similar claims against Vladimir Putin and has an online record of praising Joe Biden for strongly protecting women that were made in the same time frame as the seemingly invented false claims.
But there are allot of people willing to call him GUILTY based on her accusation alone and use the Believe the Woman catch phrase to justify their almost vigilante mentality. That's what I (and I think others, Left and Right wing) find unsettling about the whole thing not the notion that charge of sexual misconduct (or any criminality, for that matter) ought to be taken seriously.
I don't think it's a coincidence that they chose the word "believe", instead of "take seriously". I've heard the refrain "Women just don't lie about this kind of thing." too often.
Quote from: Ghostmaker;1126952Remember how Richard Dawson would kiss women on the cheek in a gentlemanly fashion, on Family Feud?
He would be -so- fired (possibly out of a catapult) for that these days.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1126984I don't think it's a coincidence that they chose the word "believe", instead of "take seriously". I've heard the refrain "Women just don't lie about this kind of thing." too often.
Same here on both counts.And there are plenty of documented accounts that argue against the second.
Quote from: CarlD.;1126983All right, I didn't argue against this in the post you quoted so I'm not sure why you quoted. I have seen several people that are ready to hang Biden and call for him to withdraw over Reade's accusation with investigation or much supporting evidence. So far there a singe woman alleging a sexual assault against Biden who is known as Tara Reade, Alexandra Tara Reade, Tara Reade Moulton, Tara Moulton, and Alexandra Tara McCabe) appears to be a very disturbed individual whose claims appear incredible as she's made similar claims against Vladimir Putin and has an online record of praising Joe Biden for strongly protecting women that were made in the same time frame as the seemingly invented false claims.
Is there anything that Vladimir Putin can not do?
The guy is like a real life Lex Luthor mixed with Ernst Stavro Blofeld.
The Biden / Tara dance is a laugh because of the instantaneous double standard by Democrats and the media. Of course the Bernie crew wants Biden to burn (#Howie2020! LOL). Trump fans are loving the neon glowing hypocrisy even the alleged "reasonable middle" can see. And we can't wait to see the God Emperor weaponize Tara as a bludgeon, especially as she's now gone on record with the cops. That's under penalty of perjury so now the DNC has a squirrel in their shorts.
Of course, its all side theater. Elections are primarily based on what people feel about the economy in the previous three months.
Quote from: Shasarak;1126999Is there anything that Vladimir Putin can not do?
No. No, there isn't.
Quote from: Shasarak;1126999The guy is like a real life Lex Luthor mixed with Ernst Stavro Blofeld.
With a little bit of He-Man thrown in. (have to love that pic; worst photoshop ever. He does like his tigers though )
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/rQetzCuRDAY/maxresdefault.jpg)
I tend to be much less romantic about the guy. He's former KGB, and I wouldn't trust him to sell me a used car.
He's not stupid, but he IS dangerous.
Women are more class conscious than men, when it comes to dating and eventual marriage, they are elitist, but when it comes to politics, they are egalitarian. A woman wants a bread winner and an income earner that can support her, but unfortunately they also like to support policies that make it harder for men to support women, so here we have the female double standard. Women want to earn the same as men, but will not date men that are lower on the socioeconomic scale. Translated, just because you are a woke self-hating man does not mean that woman you have your eye on will want to date you. Women like to date billionaires, but they don't like to vote for them as president, they will vote for Joe Biden, but try to marry Donald Trump.
Hey Tom, thanks for sharing your female perspective.
QuoteDon't you know that a man being rich is like a girl being pretty? You wouldn't marry a girl just because she's pretty, but my goodness, doesn't it help?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1136916Hey Tom, thanks for sharing your female perspective.
That is very true, lots of men would marry a pretty girl that was beneath their social economic status, Donald Trump did three times. I have trouble believing a female billionaire would marry someone like me, no matter how good looking I was.
Let's look at the example of Taylor Swift, she is rich and pretty, what kind of men does she hang out with? Two kinds, the alpha male that is of her status and above, and a bunch of gay male dancers who she hires, they are gay for a reason, since they are below her economic status she doesn't want them hitting on her, so to make sure that doesn't happen, she wants to make sure they are gay and thus not interested in women, only the rich and famous may date her, and male dancers aren't that.
I do not know male back up dancer demographics that well, but I do not think it would take any effort at all to only hire gay dancers. There is a reason everyone remembers Kevin Federline, he was like a unicorn.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1136916Hey Tom, thanks for sharing your female perspective.
God forbid. It's not like women air their opinions on men all the time.
Quote from: Trond;1136936God forbid. It's not like women air their opinions on men all the time.
And sexual selection don't real. The males of the species waste scarce resources on their plumage because toxic masculinity.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1136916Hey Tom, thanks for sharing your female perspective.
You probably shouldn't assume anyone's gender, bigot.
Quote from: oggsmash;1136933I do not know male back up dancer demographics that well, but I do not think it would take any effort at all to only hire gay dancers. There is a reason everyone remembers Kevin Federline, he was like a unicorn.
Let's reverse it, suppose I'm a male pop star, and I hire a bunch of female dancers, what are the chances that 90% are going to be lesbian if I am not actively searching for lesbian dancers? Men don't mind women flirting with them, we don't make judgements on them based on their net worth, women do. It Doesn't matter to Donald Trump's if his latest girlfriend is not a billionaire, for women like Taylor swift though, you ask her on a date, you chances with her depend greatly on your social status, you'd better be her equal or better!
Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1136958Let's reverse it, suppose I'm a male pop star, and I hire a bunch of female dancers, what are the chances that 90% are going to be lesbian if I am not actively searching for lesbian dancers? Men don't mind women flirting with them, we don't make judgements on them based on their net worth, women do. It Doesn't matter to Donald Trump's if his latest girlfriend is not a billionaire, for women like Taylor swift though, you ask her on a date, you chances with her depend greatly on your social status, you'd better be her equal or better!
I agree. I was just saying, I do not think you have to try, at all to get all gay male dancers. I remember when Bree Larson took to social media about how offended she was that a TSA employee in the airport had the temerity to hit on her. I laughed my ass off.
Quote from: oggsmash;1136964I agree. I was just saying, I do not think you have to try, at all to get all gay male dancers. I remember when Bree Larson took to social media about how offended she was that a TSA employee in the airport had the temerity to hit on her. I laughed my ass off.
Yeah of course. Bree Larson isn't worth it. There are a lot of women who are as good looking as Bree Larson that aren't famous, I would stand a much better chance going out on a date with one of them. Once celebrity goes to their heads, forget about it! The biggest danger is if you date a woman and then she becomes rich and famous, then she'll look around and wish to trade up. If you are married and your wife becomes a rich and famous superstar, enjoy her wealth while you can, because some rich and famous guy is going to come along and your wife will divorce you for him, good to have a good lawyer though and get some alimony.
Well, I think she was offended because the dude had no idea she was an actress, and because he thought he had a shot (good looking famous women think they are great looking)
Quote from: oggsmash;1136970Well, I think she was offended because the dude had no idea she was an actress, and because he thought he had a shot (good looking famous women think they are great looking)
What's Madonna doing these days? Madonna got married a few times, she had multiple husbands, her life is a mess. I remember she had a bunch of gay male dancers too. Madonna is an elitist just like all the rest, she pretends to be liberal and believe in equality, but she is very class conscious, she won't marry or date anyone who is beneath her, and to prevent too many low class males from trying, she hires gay male dancers that have no interest in women, she can't do much about her male fans, but that is what security is for. The male pop stars just love the attention from all their female fans, they will often have sex with them. There is a big difference between male and female.
Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1137027What's Madonna doing these days? Madonna got married a few times, she had multiple husbands, her life is a mess. I remember she had a bunch of gay male dancers too. Madonna is an elitist just like all the rest, she pretends to be liberal and believe in equality, but she is very class conscious, she won't marry or date anyone who is beneath her, and to prevent too many low class males from trying, she hires gay male dancers that have no interest in women, she can't do much about her male fans, but that is what security is for. The male pop stars just love the attention from all their female fans, they will often have sex with them. There is a big difference between male and female.
Never forgave her from wrecking Guy Ritchie as a movie director.
Quote from: oggsmash;1137166Never forgave her from wrecking Guy Ritchie as a movie director.
Oh? What happened?
Quote from: Trond;1137226Oh? What happened?
He went from making some great movies to some shitboxes. I can not remember the one he let her act in, what a disaster. The guy who make lock stock and two smoking barrels and snatch, starts making.....I do not have words. I thought he had started to recover a bit with Rockanrolla but it certainly changed his style for a bit.
Quote from: oggsmash;1137228He went from making some great movies to some shitboxes. I can not remember the one he let her act in, what a disaster. The guy who make lock stock and two smoking barrels and snatch, starts making.....I do not have words. I thought he had started to recover a bit with Rockanrolla but it certainly changed his style for a bit.
There is a career arc for liberal movie producers. First they just want to make great movies and sell tickets, and once they have made enough money so they are set for life, they produce terrible social activist woke movies so they can get along with their liberal neighbors and go to their parties.
Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1137400There is a career arc for liberal movie producers. First they just want to make great movies and sell tickets, and once they have made enough money so they are set for life, they produce terrible social activist woke movies so they can get along with their liberal neighbors and go to their parties.
I think almost all movie makers are liberal to a degree, but woke has never been one of Guy's main attributes. I dont think anyone liked the movies he mads while he and madonna were an item. I cant remember woke being a problem with the movie, I remember it was just shit. Mainly because she was in it, if she is in a movie, its a sure sign it is 90 percent likely to be shit.
Quote from: oggsmash;1137419I think almost all movie makers are liberal to a degree, but woke has never been one of Guy's main attributes. I dont think anyone liked the movies he mads while he and madonna were an item. I cant remember woke being a problem with the movie, I remember it was just shit. Mainly because she was in it, if she is in a movie, its a sure sign it is 90 percent likely to be shit.
Did he do the movie Evita? You know, "Don't cry for me Argentina!" I bet Madonna wishes she were Evita. Argentina is a pretty messed up third World country, it used to be one of the wealthier ones, but then it got addiction to redistribution thanks to people like Evita's husband Juan Peron. I don't want Madonna to be America's "Evita".
The term 'third world' is related to alignment between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Cracked (https://www.cracked.com/article_27306_5-misunderstood-terms-that-needlessly-freak-everyone-out.html) just included it in an entertaining article about words that are frequently used incorrectly.
You might be thinking of 'developing world', which often overlaps with countries that were part of the 3rd world - most of Africa, major sections of Asia, and parts of Latin America. But even the developing world is not as accurate as some people might think.
Here is a short and interesting TED Talk (https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_let_my_dataset_change_your_mindset/transcript?language=en) that uses data about quality of life to show that 'developing countries' have largely moved toward 'the first world' by every meaningful metric.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1137592The term 'third world' is related to alignment between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Cracked (https://www.cracked.com/article_27306_5-misunderstood-terms-that-needlessly-freak-everyone-out.html) just included it in an entertaining article about words that are frequently used incorrectly.
You might be thinking of 'developing world', which often overlaps with countries that were part of the 3rd world - most of Africa, major sections of Asia, and parts of Latin America. But even the developing world is not as accurate as some people might think.
Here is a short and interesting TED Talk (https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_let_my_dataset_change_your_mindset/transcript?language=en) that uses data about quality of life to show that 'developing countries' have largely moved toward 'the first world' by every meaningful metric.
Thanks for libtardsplanning. Now go shit in the street and burn a store. Here is something regarding those 'developing' countries that have moved to First World status, you should find it particularity useful https://www.aa.com.tr/en/health/kenyan-slum-dwellers-battle-flying-toilets/495338 (https://www.aa.com.tr/en/health/kenyan-slum-dwellers-battle-flying-toilets/495338)
Quote from: Gagarth;1137718Thanks for libtardsplanning. Now go shit in the street and burn a store. Here is something regarding those 'developing' countries that have moved to First World status, you should find it particularity useful https://www.aa.com.tr/en/health/kenyan-slum-dwellers-battle-flying-toilets/495338 (https://www.aa.com.tr/en/health/kenyan-slum-dwellers-battle-flying-toilets/495338)
The second world is largely gone, it is no longer a "world" any more, the third world is still with us as is the first world as the second world was the Soviet Bloc, of the second world there is just Cuba, and North Korea left. China doesn't take communism seriously anymore, their leaders want to stay in power, but you could basically call China an advanced third world country as their main export is cheap labor which they exploit to become the second largest economy in the world, the reason they are the second largest economy is when you put a lot of poor people together, that is still a lot of purchasing power, even though their standard of living is significantly below ours, their population is high.