|
+ Show Spoiler +I would call that abuse. At the very least, that's a very serious issue, and that's a complete lack of respect and perspective on her part. That is really not something that you should ignore (you probably have brought this up to her but that's bad) :\
Have you ever been in a relationship? If you have, can you honestly say that your gf didn't playfully punch you, or even not so playfully if she was a little ticked? I'm pretty sure all gfs do it. Most that I've seen, anyways. It's not like she thinks she can hurt you... she knows she can't and thats why she does it. And I might get flak for this, but I also think its common for bfs to physically restrain their girls at times (like if she's trying to change the channel from whatever it is you like watching). As long as it stays in good fun and is between two people who are each aware of the emotional and physical boundaries of the other, physical tussling doesn't hurt anyone. It reminds both you and her that you're the physically strong one in the relationship (generally), and that's a turn-on for both of you (generally).
I think it's pretty clear to most people what the difference is between good-natured playing and harmful abuse. This video is for the emotionally distorted people who can't see it, to force them to examine their relationships and figure out what's going on.
|
On November 30 2009 20:54 StorkHwaiting wrote:
And I hate the ridiculous double standard. My gf will sometimes get mad and punch me. I outweigh her by 70 lbs so it's obviously not going to hurt, but I don't know anyone who'd call that abuse. Even though what she's doing is exactly the same as an abuser. A loss of self control leading to a violent act.
He's saying it's a loss of self control, not being playful.
And yeah that happens, physical contact gets made, both ways (girl pushes, or guy grabs arm, or whatever). But losing control and punching someone isn't right, no matter who it is. Even if his girlfriend isn't hurting him, she's taking advantage of that double standard he's alluding to.
|
lol that vid is like 20 pounds of shit in a 10 pound bag
|
What happens when a bunch of misguided nerds who have never seen a vagina in person are presented with this video?
This thread.
|
On November 30 2009 22:11 Presony-Boy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 21:28 meeple wrote:
Uhh about the manboobs, I'm pretty sure they're talking about ones that are caused by a medical condition, not just being chubby. Those people can work out every day and they'd still have man boobs. ya theyre talking about gynecomastia, working out wont solve this problem. when "man boobs" are caused by high body fat, then the solution would be working out.
fight club anyone?
yeah but the blog- i loled and loled quite hard, especially when i saw the social worker.. unbiased my ass... 5/5 would read again.
BONUS EDIT:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Russian Federation1381 Posts
On November 30 2009 22:35 ColdLava wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2009 20:54 StorkHwaiting wrote:
And I hate the ridiculous double standard. My gf will sometimes get mad and punch me. I outweigh her by 70 lbs so it's obviously not going to hurt, but I don't know anyone who'd call that abuse. Even though what she's doing is exactly the same as an abuser. A loss of self control leading to a violent act. He's saying it's a loss of self control, not being playful. And yeah that happens, physical contact gets made, both ways (girl pushes, or guy grabs arm, or whatever). But losing control and punching someone isn't right, no matter who it is. Even if his girlfriend isn't hurting him, she's taking advantage of that double standard he's alluding to.
Who told you it's like that? Man and woman are different, they aren't even similar in most aspects of life and can't be held to a unified standard. A person should choose himself if he's alright with this relationship even if it includes violence. Some propaganda asshole on tv saying, "no you're doing it wrong and this is the correct way" that's what disgusting. Reminds me of wild cows, pigs, horses and enslaved domesticated ones. Enslaved ones are well fed, clean and don't take abuse, they are dong what they told, they know life as much as they owner wants them to know it, there is no true hierarchy based on sex or anything else. That's exactly what current political trends offer.
|
Haha
"Have you ever seen a guy? if yes then he were abusing you"
|
Immature topic and immature discussion about feminism. Men show their perceived "power" over women in a multitide of subtle ways daily, be it in comments or physically.
Something interesting to think about: The reason feminism is shunned down upon by many people is because it namely promotes womens rights. If promoting womens rights make people angry or joke about it, that says quite alot about the views we have of women and how seriously we take them.
|
On December 01 2009 02:20 Foucault wrote:
Something interesting to think about: The reason feminism is shunned down upon by many people is because it namely promotes womens rights. If promoting womens rights make people angry or joke about it, that says quite alot about the views we have of women and how seriously we take them.
Okay then, how are "mens rights" and "womens rights" any different? how can you promote something which automatically shuns the other, and still try to claim equality?
We have "human rights". Enforcing that would force equality. Trying to add additional rights to, or subtract rights from, select groups is counterproductive to the idea of equality, isn't it?
Wait, what about people at some kind of disadvantage, don't they deserve special treatment to allow them to participate just like everyone else? Surely, that must be a good thing, which is why the feminist movement is one of the best things humanity has ever had happen to it.
Well, by that logic, someone who is paralyzed from the neck down deserves treatment and the ability to participate in the NFL (National Football League, a brutal sport at a professional level). Surely, the league must be made to accommodate this person, if they want to participate.
No, that can't be the case, there must be conditions met by the person to allow them to participate in that. Well, that must extend to many things. Obviously, in some cases, accommodations can be made (such as a University being wheelchair accessible).
Wait a second? What about something like a firefighter? That is a job that needs certain conditions met by the person (eg, being able to carry a 180 lb person up a flight of stairs in under X seconds). Clearly, these conditions must be met by the person, regardless of who that person is, what minority group they may or may not be part of, or even their gender.
Well, then, why do women firefighters have different standards? Should we have different standards for an asian firefighter? Or a white firefighter? Or a black firefighter? Why do women have special treatments that no other group has?
Clearly, the logic behind the movement is dumb. Enforce equal rights, and I'll support you, no questions asked. Enforce special rights, and I'll tell you to fuck off. And that is what they stand for, which pisses me off. We have a little thing called "Human Rights" for a reason.....
|
IMPERVIOUS:
Jobs that demand a very good physique should of course go to those men or women who can carry them out. Not that many jobs require a good physique anymore though.
What you wrote about disabled people and the fact that you're comparing them with what I wrote about women, who make up 50% of the population, is RETARDED. Actually, there are more women than men in the world.
Men are still further up the status ladder in society regarding dominance and power, which is fucked up. You don't think so? The notion that it should even be an issue and we are debating women's rights is retarded. It should just be forced and men should stop being whiny about women gaining power. Just because you happened to be born a man, doesn't make women's rights not apply to you.
|
Modern feminists have really lost their way. Equality does not equate to sameness.
|
On December 01 2009 03:53 Foucault wrote:
Jobs that demand a very good physique should of course go to those men or women who can carry them out. Not that many jobs require a good physique anymore though.
There are more things than just physique that determine what someone can do..... Interpersonal skills, intrapersonal skills, artistic skills, visual skills, logical skills, mathematical skills, linguistic skills, etc. Physique is just one small aspect of that.
Should we ignore everything in favor of equality? Because that would lead to my example with the disabled person.
What you wrote about disabled people and the fact that you're comparing them with what I wrote about women, who make up 50% of the population, is RETARDED. Actually, there are more women than men in the world.
Umm, there are a lot of people with disabilities. Don't kid yourself. Somewhere around 1 in 4 adults have some kind of mental disability..... That's a pretty big group. It's not only physical.
Men are still further up the status ladder in society regarding dominance and power, which is fucked up. You don't think so? The notion that it should even be an issue and we are debating women's rights is retarded. It should just be forced and men should stop being whiny about women gaining power. Just because you happened to be born a man, doesn't make women's rights not apply to you.
Umm, any group getting preferential treatment, regardless of the size of the group, is dumb, when trying to create equality.....
As for the inequality in the social ladder - yes, I think it is fucked up. But if I had 2 candidates for a job, and they were equal in every respect (one being male, the other being female), which should I choose?
Are you telling me that I have to pick the female, so I don't appear sexist? Well, if I choose the female, am I not sexist by that action? I should simply flip a coin, or something of the like.
What about giving out scholarships for university? Why are there some "womens only scholarships" in Engineering and "mens only scholarships" in nursing? Shouldn't the programs be filled with the best members, instead of making it easier for one group over the other? Isn't that sexist?
This works both ways you know.
What about something like the determination of custody after a divorce? Why is it that the women get children more often (roughly 5-1 where I live)? I am not saying that it is a womans job to take care of children, and I do not think that it is a mans job either. According to your logic, we should be fighting to get men custody more often..... Clearly, even though we have laws in place to create equality in custody battles, women are winning these, and deserve to get knocked down a peg..... It's the only way to create equal treatment, right?
This "social status ladder" you are referring to is not as one-sided as you may think. Women can get away with "abusing" their boyfriends a lot easier than men can (social stigma, legally, physically, etc). Shouldn't that be changed in favor of equality? There are a bunch of examples, go out and look if you want.
|
On November 30 2009 22:27 GGQ wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I would call that abuse. At the very least, that's a very serious issue, and that's a complete lack of respect and perspective on her part. That is really not something that you should ignore (you probably have brought this up to her but that's bad) :\ Have you ever been in a relationship? If you have, can you honestly say that your gf didn't playfully punch you, or even not so playfully if she was a little ticked? I'm pretty sure all gfs do it. Most that I've seen, anyways. It's not like she thinks she can hurt you... she knows she can't and thats why she does it. And I might get flak for this, but I also think its common for bfs to physically restrain their girls at times (like if she's trying to change the channel from whatever it is you like watching). As long as it stays in good fun and is between two people who are each aware of the emotional and physical boundaries of the other, physical tussling doesn't hurt anyone. It reminds both you and her that you're the physically strong one in the relationship (generally), and that's a turn-on for both of you (generally). I think it's pretty clear to most people what the difference is between good-natured playing and harmful abuse. This video is for the emotionally distorted people who can't see it, to force them to examine their relationships and figure out what's going on.
totally agree and yes, I think most people have this kind of relationship which is normal.
On November 30 2009 23:05 Raidy wrote:
What happens when a bunch of misguided nerds who have never seen a vagina in person are presented with this video?
This thread.
Not sure who you are addressing, if it's me and those that agree, then you're just being ignorant assuming that we are all pimple faced social outcasts. If you are talking about those who don't agree, then I might agree with you lol. But still your post wasn't very contributory.
On December 01 2009 03:44 lMPERVlOUS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 02:20 Foucault wrote:
Something interesting to think about: The reason feminism is shunned down upon by many people is because it namely promotes womens rights. If promoting womens rights make people angry or joke about it, that says quite alot about the views we have of women and how seriously we take them.
... Wait a second? What about something like a firefighter? That is a job that needs certain conditions met by the person (eg, being able to carry a 180 lb person up a flight of stairs in under X seconds). Clearly, these conditions must be met by the person, regardless of who that person is, what minority group they may or may not be part of, or even their gender. Well, then, why do women firefighters have different standards? Should we have different standards for an asian firefighter? Or a white firefighter? Or a black firefighter? Why do women have special treatments that no other group has? Clearly, the logic behind the movement is dumb. Enforce equal rights, and I'll support you, no questions asked. Enforce special rights, and I'll tell you to fuck off. And that is what they stand for, which pisses me off. We have a little thing called "Human Rights" for a reason.....
This is kind of derailing the thread about women's rights but it is totally related to the thread I made about women in the infantry ranks of the military.
Most people agreed that testing should automatically be X has to do Y efficiently to pass. No mantter if X was male or female. But with regards to infantry positions there is a whole number of other factors that play besides just completing the task.
Someone mentioned that the Army has easier training and requirements for women, and I'm pretty sure the same goes for Police. (girls have to do like 10 pushups and guys need to do 15 or something). When shit is modified to give women a chance that just proves right there that they are not equal and accept it. Otherwise they would be crying about how their shit should be same standard as men and guess what happens then?
This is a different topic though imo.
|
On December 01 2009 04:09 koreasilver wrote:
Equality does not equate to sameness.
This I agree with.
|
Impervious: I think that alot of assumptions about men and women lie in some arbitrary definition of gender roles and everything is influenced by these views of how men and women "are".
What you are speaking about is imo alot of social constructs. Saying that the best individuals in a given field should get the job is of course true, but there are discourses stating that men are "naturally" better at some things and women at others, which I don't agree with. Imo, these assumptions are social constructions and clouds our judgement of the invidual at hand.
The dividing of humans into "male" and "female" beyond their obvious physical differences is problematic and the solutions that you mention are in turn also problematic because of these underlying categorizations of people into 2 set roles instead of seeing a multitude of individual characteristics, regardless of socially constructed gender.
|
There is a HUGE difference between playful physical contact and not playful.
If your gf tries so change the channel and you stop her in a fun way, you're both laughing. Its just good fun and thats great.
If she tries and change the channel and you stop her just so that you get your way because you're stronger and go back to watching tv then that is terrible! Though also she should probably ask if you mind she changes the channel theres still no way in hell that you should forcably be enforcing your wants over hers with your physical power.
Just try something like " Oh, actually, can we watch that?".
If you are in an agrument with your gf neither person should be physically "attacking" the other no matter what imho...
A lot of the stuff in that video I think is really good. There is no need to blow it up and start screaming slurs and generalising all feminists. Charlie, I think your post would have been more effective had you cut out all the "bitches", "dumb cunts" etc. Seriously, people have to stop using those terms so loosely its not good.
Just because this video only addresses women being abused doesn't mean that they think only men can be abusers. Filling everything with him/her, he/she, person, partner, etc is not useful in many cases in my opinion.
As for your address of the put downs section, I think that a lot of women have trouble with self esteem issues and fueling that with "jokes" is no way to treat anyone. Ok, maybe she just can't take a joke, but who says everyone needs to be able to take a joke. Honestly even if she seems fine with it chances are it'll just add a tiny bit to her insecurities. And I don't think that this is restricted to just women. If someone close to you makes a joke about something that you are insecure about its likely to stick with you even in some small way.
I think the best line in your OP was the last line of step 3: "Talk it out."
This will lead to solutions.
EDIT: Whenever I read these threads I often wonder how people would feel if their mothers or girlfriends read their posts.
|
On December 01 2009 07:12 Zortch wrote:
EDIT: Whenever I read these threads I often wonder how people would feel if their mothers or girlfriends read their posts.
yeah, me too. My theory (not entirely unfounded) is that guys who have good relations to sisters and their mother tend to be more interested in women's rights, than let's say for example a guy with only a brother, living with their dad. First hand experience is priceless
|
There's nothing wrong with this video. That's all true, and it's all forms of control. Someone who yanks you around or tells you what to do all the time is not a good person to be in a relationship with. Obviously this video is assuming you have a brain and it wasn't just in good fun... But if something is all in good fun THEN YOU YOU KNOW IT TOO. It can't just be in 'good fun' for the person doing it  It can't be allowed to change who you are and what you do (which every point in the video is about... Not just someone telling you what to do, but you listening to them even when they claim to be kidding).
There's nothing even feminazi about this video. It's not saying women are better than men, or men are pigs... It's just fair warning to anyone googling 'am I being abused?' (and anyone who has to ask that question deserves a bit of encouragement to get out of what's troubling them).
Also, anyone who thinks men are naturally dominant, and women are naturally submissive needs to stop reading erotica and watching porn. Human beings are way more complex than that.
On December 01 2009 07:19 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 07:12 Zortch wrote:
EDIT: Whenever I read these threads I often wonder how people would feel if their mothers or girlfriends read their posts. yeah, me too. My theory (not entirely unfounded) is that guys who have good relations to sisters and their mother tend to be more interested in women's rights, than let's say for example a guy with only a brother, living with their dad. First hand experience is priceless
I don't agree with you, but lol
|
On December 01 2009 07:10 Foucault wrote:
Impervious: I think that alot of assumptions about men and women lie in some arbitrary definition of gender roles and everything is influenced by these views of how men and women "are".
Actually, I agree with you completely. I have met women who can beat the shit out of most guys, and I have met guys that are incredibly feminine (not gay). I know guys who are more obsessed with fashion than most women, and I know women gearheads. There are a lot of girls in my engineering classes, and I know a few guys in nursing classes.....
However, the majority of nurses are female. Does that not give some kind of hint that they may be better at the job (currently, the job duties are subject to change)? Does that not hint that there may be something physical that caused that? Well, I guess that must mean that men are inferior to women when it comes to nursing (in general, not saying that all men cannot do the job well).
Would you view that comment as sexist?
The majority of firefighters are male. Does that not give some kind of hint that they may be better at the job (currently, the job duties are subject to change)? Does that not hint that there may be something physical that caused that? Well, I guess that must mean that women are inferior to men when it comes to firefighting (in general, not saying that all women cannot do the job well).
Would you view that comment as sexist?
They are pretty much just a copy/paste of each other, with a different job and the male/female swapped around. Women are no better or worse than men overall, but they do have strengths (as a collective) that men do not have, and vice versa. Individually, anybody can accomplish anything.
But targeting an individual group is kind of stupid. What if, on average, asians average income was $5000 per year higher than average. Does this mean that asians should have their wages cut, and the other groups should have them artificially increased to compensate? What if they have the highest level of employment? Should they be first on the chopping block when a layoff is needed, since they are more prominent (by percentage) in the workforce?
I'm sorry, but those two cases are absolute BS to me. It's singling out a single group for negatives. Regardless of what kind of group it is, they do not deserve any different treatment than anyone else. THAT is equality, imo.
|
I think women being nurses hints more at the roles women have had for several thousand years (if not longer); the role of the nurturer and caretaker. This stems from an truly ancient "tradition" where men would be the hunters and providers of food and protections, and women took care of children and took care of the home. I think most of this stuff is socially constructed and lives on to this very day because of those early assigned gender roles. However it's so hard to say how much of it is biological... some probably is imo. But not that much. Men for example are raised to be "men" and be competetive, self-confident and ambitious and less in touch with their feelings than women. Would that make for a worse nurse? Possibly, but it hasn't got anything to do with men essentially being worse at nursing, but rather that men are socialized in a certain way. See what I'm trying to say?
So what do we define the word "sexist" as exactly? I think people use that word way too often without really knowing how they define it. No, I don't think it's sexist, however I think it might be based on things that aren't real, notions of what women are "supposed" to be good at. Then again it's hard to know for sure
My viewpoint is that the examples you bring up rely on assigned gender roles at large. Saying that women are better at nursing is just a result of tradition, more than biological "skills". But as firefighters men are of course better suited for it, if it requires carrying a heavy person out of a burning house. That's just the physical aspect of it though, it doesn't have that much to do with mental skills.
The thing is that this discussion shouldn't even be needed. It should imo be a natural thing that women on every level of society have equal rights to men, and the less we recreate the division between the sexes and focus more on individuals the better off we are as humankind, if we want to evolve past injustice amongst ourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
