Most terrible Stereotypical video trash I've ever seen. Obviously created by some dumb feminist and/or biased abused chick.
Step 1: Suuuuuuuure, Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Like 1 squeeze/pinch/grab/shove whatever automatically makes you a criminal abuser, bad guy, go to hell worthless trash, scum of the male human race. There is something called reflex, If a girl/gf socks me in the chest or whatever really hard with rage/anger I may just reflexively push/hit back. Sometimes your instincts just kick in, and before you realize it- you've socked someone in the face, it doesn't even have to be a girl it could be anyone. Not saying I condone it, but shit happens you know. It's totally situational. Also, citing non violent assault/harassment like pushing,grabbing,pinching,spitting alone already signifies that you are trying to hold back. Now, this may be how it starts with actual abusers- and you should be aware, but come the fuck on. The occasional little slip up non violent thing is not 100% guaranteed abuser. It goes both way you dumb cunts.
Step 2: Put downs. These are contextually and perception based. If a girl asks something like; "ooh I dunno what to get the burger/fries or the chicken/rice?" and you jokingly reply with; "Get the chicken fatty", this does not mean abuse. If the bitch can't take a joke or the truth then she has more than her weight/looks problems to worry about imo. I put down friends, enemies, my fucking boss, whoever all the time. That's just how I am, don't get into a relationship with me if you think you can change me or think you are different. Equal Rights Bitch. Step 3: Control. Now i've never really been one to try and control anyone, but if the chick is hanging around a bad crowd or general fuck ups, i'm gonna lay down the law. Do you want your gf hanging around drug addicts and degenerates all day? Hey maybe the guy is just cautious that these other guys you are hanging out with might want to fuck you? Fuck, it could even be something as simple as jealousy. Talk it out.
Step 4: Feelings. Bitches are moody, and have PMS/periods wtf? Don't blame the men you fucking retarded motherfucking feminist nazi bullshit video. Damn right you better worry about dissapointing your significant other or making them angry and likewise. THIS IS CALLED A RELATIONSHIP, if you didn't think about shit like that then what the fuck, Seriously? "..even if he never physically hurt you do you feel like he could..?" THOUGHT POLICE, THOUGHT POLICE, THOUGHT POLICE, WEEE WOOO WEEE WOOO. BUULLLLLLLLLL SHIIIIIIIIIIIT
Step 5: LOL, They basically condone snooping into his shit and past, Guilty until proven innocent right? Yes, please take advice from people who are not you in your relationship 100%. Wait? isn't that step 3? What the fuckkkkkkkkk, MIND WARPPPP Step 6: Jokes are always to be taken seriously. Lmao. Why did the feminist cross the road? + Show Spoiler [Answer] +
Who the fuck cares, feminists are retarded whores who can't get laid.
I bet you took that seriously, didn't you? Point proved. Step 7: Relationships have ups and downs, I don't care who the fuck you are. There is no fool proof way to have constant affection and love without a single argument,disagreement, or struggle. Step 8: If you have any problems, see the fat ugly social worker. hahahah. They always know best right? Considering their life long 'unbiased' view of men, and all their sexcapades and relationship experience that is greater than yours. Roll on the floor fucking laughing.
Step 9: Go batshit crazy insane, steal his stuff, hide his keys, dissappear and don't answer his calls. That's the way to do it.
If you disagree, look at some of these other 'insightful' videos
(if you don't get it, they fail to mention; Working out..)
I have nothing against empowering women or teaching girls how to spot signs of abuse etc. But this kind of propagandic shit does the complete opposite imo. And just the way this video is presented and the tone of it is a slander to men. They should have said 'abusive partner' and used examples for both sexes. But instead we get this garbage. + Show Spoiler +
SpoR-CharlieM> it's wrong [19:02] <SpoR-CharlieM> very wrong [19:03] <SpoR-CharlieM> it's as bad as the misinformation propaganda in those cosmo magazines [19:03] <SpoR-CharlieM> about how a relationship should be [19:03] <SpoR-CharlieM> or how to have great sex [19:03] <SpoR-CharlieM> or whatever trash they fill in those mags [19:03] <Niton> how do you figure [19:03] <SpoR-CharlieM> these kinds of videos do not create stronger more intelligent women [19:03] <SpoR-CharlieM> they do the opposite [19:04] <SpoR-CharlieM> they create weak minded girls [19:04] <SpoR-CharlieM> who don't know how to deal with life [19:04] <SpoR-CharlieM> and spend friviloous amoutns of money hiring help or whatever bullshit [19:04] <SpoR-CharlieM> "how to find the perfect man" books [19:05] <Niton> I take it you've never gotten to watch a friend change because of the way their boyfriend treats them, then [19:05] <Chaz> how long has day9 tv been going? [19:05] <SpoR-CharlieM> actually [19:05] <SpoR-CharlieM> my little sister [19:05] <SpoR-CharlieM> had a controlling boyfriend [19:05] <SpoR-CharlieM> and i've heard them argue [19:05] <SpoR-CharlieM> and listened to her side of the story [19:05] <SpoR-CharlieM> which was completely bullshit [19:05] <SpoR-CharlieM> biased feelings madness [19:05] <Niton> because of the way the legal system works, stuff like that is the best anyone can do to stop people like him [19:06] <Niton> which is why they do it, corny as it is
Didn't read the OP, but I think it's a nice way to destroy culture and society to equalize everyone to everyone, man to woman, boy to girl, this to that, etc. That's fake, that's against the nature, that's not how humanity existed through all it's history.
On November 30 2009 20:12 Magic84 wrote: Didn't read the OP, but I think it's a nice way to destroy culture and society to equalize everyone to everyone, man to woman, boy to girl, this to that, etc. That's fake, that's against the nature, that's not how humanity existed through all it's history.
On November 30 2009 20:12 Magic84 wrote: Didn't read the OP, but I think it's a nice way to destroy culture and society to equalize everyone to everyone, man to woman, boy to girl, this to that, etc. That's fake, that's against the nature, that's not how humanity existed through all it's history.
What exactly are you trying to say here?
He wants to say that historical inequalities are "Natural" (capital N) and thus it is wrong for us to try to equalize and rationalize equal rights and attitudes. Egalitarianism is bad.
Comments in this blog are taking it in different and unpleasant directions.
If you watch the clip, it's clear that they are being very very conservative. There are plenty of healthy happy relationships that would include the symptoms warned against in the clip.
I guess they are going with the 'better safe than sorry' approach.
lol thats one of the funniest shits ive ever seen. its full of crap.
whats next? "if he makes eye contact u have to be careful, it might suggest that he wants to hit you" i hate these kind of feminist bitches that think theyre being discriminated about pretty much everything.
step1: my friend's gf used to hit him and pinch him, can he sue her? things like that can happen as part of teasing or reflex like u said.
step2: in some relationships the girl does that. so beware, ur gf might be abusive! theres a big diff between joking around and putting her down. also it might just be part of ur character, if the girl cant live with it then just break up.
step3: my friend's gf didnt allow my friend to be around women when she's not around. hey guess what this step applies to both genders. sometimes it jealousy sometimes its for their own good. either u talk about it (and try to find solution), ok with it or just break up. if the girl insist on doing something dumb (just like u said) then controlling her is actually the right thing to do.
step4: hey guess what that shit also applies to both genders, like there arent bitchy girls out there that just hurt ppl for fun. feeling bad about disappointing ur bf/gf (or making him/her angry) is part of the relationship. if u dont feel bad about it then something is wrong in this relationship. some things can lead to a fight, its natural.
step5: wow bullshit, like she knows what really happened in his relationships. ppl also tend to lie a lot.
ive seen stuff like when the guy was doing his best to try and make a relationship work but the girl didnt even bother to try to make it work. then after they break up the girl will tell stupid lies how she couldnt take it anymore and its all his fault and all that crap.
step 6: lol ok. no more jokes i guess? thats just fucking dumb. use some fucking common sense, how hard is it to spot a joke/sarcasm?
step 7: the guy feels bad and wants to make the relationship work. guess that makes him abusive, right?
step 8: whether or not this social worker or whatever can help u, the opinion will be based on the girl's side. making assumptions based on just 1 of the sides probably wont reflect the truth. just like how u usually see the boy's friends defending him whether the girl's friends defending her.
On November 30 2009 20:29 GGQ wrote: Comments in this blog are taking it in different and unpleasant directions.
If you watch the clip, it's clear that they are being very very conservative. There are plenty of healthy happy relationships that would include the symptoms warned against in the clip.
I guess they are going with the 'better safe than sorry' approach.
The message should have said "things to consider if you're in an abusive relationship," and these things also apply to men. However, the worst this is doing is making people challenge themselves on what's actually happening in this relationship. What's bad with that? None of these points directly lead to "wow you're in an abusive relationship gg no re," these things are signs that could actually reveal really bad things about someone's (the partner's) personality that you might not have thought about, or lied to yourself/hid from the facts about who the person actually is.
Abusive relationships are terrible because a LOT of people that are abused don't even realize that they're in an abusive relationship, they think that it's 1.) their fault, and 2.) that it's normal. Any messages to get people to detach themselves emotionally from the relationship and think as rationally as they can is a good thing. Who knows, you might actually settle on the conclusion that your relationship is actually perfectly fine, and it'll make you appreciate your girlfriend/boyfriend more because you've actually given thought into it.
Also, this video isn't ridiculous, and the people that are making fun of it (not the person I quoted, but the OP and the one above my post in particular) aren't funny because this shit is really serious -_-
The problem is this youtube video is a few seconds long yet doesn't seem to emphasize that these behaviors are problems ONLY when they are chronic. Teasing/making fun of your gf is absolutely fine as long as it's not some kind of constant destruction of the girl's confidence.
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.
On November 30 2009 20:54 StorkHwaiting wrote: The problem is this youtube video is a few seconds long yet doesn't seem to emphasize that these behaviors are problems ONLY when they are chronic. Teasing/making fun of your gf is absolutely fine as long as it's not some kind of constant destruction of the girl's confidence.
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.
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) :\
I agree with the top paragraph, there's actually a LOT more to abusive relationships than this video sheds a light on, such as when it's actually not a sign of abusive behavior.
On November 30 2009 20:12 Magic84 wrote: Didn't read the OP, but I think it's a nice way to destroy culture and society to equalize everyone to everyone, man to woman, boy to girl, this to that, etc. That's fake, that's against the nature, that's not how humanity existed through all it's history.
What exactly are you trying to say here?
He wants to say that historical inequalities are "Natural" (capital N) and thus it is wrong for us to try to equalize and rationalize equal rights and attitudes. Egalitarianism is bad.
Yeah making laws to try to force people to view each other as equal can lead itself to abuse (such as a hypothetical law that enforces employers to pay women and men the same wage, which can be abused), but we're talking about abusive relationships and the assertion that "women aren't equal to men," in this context (which I thought Magic84 might be making, which was why I asked) is ridiculous.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
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 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?
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 07:12 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
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.
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
so by your definition what do you assess me as- based on my posts?
Hard to say, you seem to be an original thinker, and fond of free food.
About your family situation it's quite hard to say but either you have an older sister or an older brother, most likely an older brother or two older brothers. Either way I don't think you're the oldest kid in the family, by the way you're writing the topic as a question, which implies that you have older siblings and are looking for answers.
On December 01 2009 08:57 Foucault wrote: Hard to say, you seem to be an original thinker, and fond of free food.
About your family situation it's quite hard to say but either you have an older sister or an older brother, most likely an older brother or two older brothers. Either way I don't think you're the oldest kid in the family, by the way you're writing the topic as a question, which implies that you have older siblings and are looking for answers.
How did I do?
Not good, I have two sisters, one older and one younger (4 years apart). I don't get your other psychobabble (no offense) though.
I'm pretty friendly with my sisters and I'm sure my older one would probably agree with me on this video even though she would be more inclined to disagree. (she's a psych/socio master's or bachelors, i forget) My younger sister is more naive and party type girl. Pretty close with my mom although she is quite retarded a lot of times. Opposite with my father, although I wouldn't call him super smart, he is wise.
btw, this got me thinking. It would be neat if people made blogs asking others to describe them, you never really get honest opinions IRL of how people think of you and it is refreshing to see other perspectives of self. (did that make sense?)
My psychobabble is from a book on how our place in the family forms us which I read in psychology class. Then again I hardly have any info on you, so w/e.
On December 01 2009 09:27 Foucault wrote: My psychobabble is from a book on how our place in the family forms us which I read in psychology class. Then again I hardly have any info on you, so w/e.
I stand corrected =)
is that the same book that says stuff like youngest kid is always the 'salesman' or outgoing attention seeker type? And the middle kid is always the insane one. I forget the only child, but the process repeats every 4th kid supposedly. Also I think it said something like if there are 3 of girls/or of boys or more in a fam that one of them will be gay.
It's actually a book written by a danish psychiatrist who examined the family relations for 15 000 people and made profiles on the siblings.
But yeah, the youngest kid is generally speaking outgoing, rebellious and carefree. The middle kid is the people person who've learned to socialize with different people being in the middle of the family. The oldest kid/only kid are kind of alike and take on leadership and responsibility and are individualists.
On December 01 2009 09:34 Foucault wrote: It's actually a book written by a danish psychiatrist who examined the family relations for 15 000 people and made profiles on the siblings.
But yeah, the youngest kid is generally speaking outgoing, rebellious and carefree. The middle kid is the people person who've learned to socialize with different people being in the middle of the family. The oldest kid/only kid are kind of alike and take on leadership and responsibility and are individualists.
I thought in a family of five, where all siblings are the same gender, the studies showed the youngest often had an inferiority complex (for obvious reasons). I would hardly call that outgoing/carefree.
On December 01 2009 09:34 Foucault wrote: It's actually a book written by a danish psychiatrist who examined the family relations for 15 000 people and made profiles on the siblings.
But yeah, the youngest kid is generally speaking outgoing, rebellious and carefree. The middle kid is the people person who've learned to socialize with different people being in the middle of the family. The oldest kid/only kid are kind of alike and take on leadership and responsibility and are individualists.
I thought in a family of five, where all siblings are the same gender, the studies showed the youngest often had an inferiority complex (for obvious reasons). I would hardly call that outgoing/carefree.
On December 01 2009 09:34 Foucault wrote: It's actually a book written by a danish psychiatrist who examined the family relations for 15 000 people and made profiles on the siblings.
But yeah, the youngest kid is generally speaking outgoing, rebellious and carefree. The middle kid is the people person who've learned to socialize with different people being in the middle of the family. The oldest kid/only kid are kind of alike and take on leadership and responsibility and are individualists.
I thought in a family of five, where all siblings are the same gender, the studies showed the youngest often had an inferiority complex (for obvious reasons). I would hardly call that outgoing/carefree.
I think you need to look at your notes again.
Like I said before, (and Fou affirmed) I read something like that it goes in 3s the first kid is a leader, second is social/crazy, 3rd is attention seeker. Then it repeats, so 4th would be leader, 5th social/crazy.
I'm not 100% though does that sound right (because it fits)?
Yeah, that's the saying, but what about the study. You have to take into account gender, not just the birth order. How does it make sense that a child growing up with two older brothers beating him up and using him as an outlet to their anger, always needing to be 'saved' by his parents (which only breeds resentment in the older siblings) becomes an extrovert?
I'm googling for the study but I can't find it =/ Couldn't find it in my textbook either...
The youngest child is likely to be the most pampered in a family with more than one child. After all, he or she is the only one who is never dethroned! And so youngest children are the second most likely source of problem children, just behind first children. On the other hand, the youngest may also feel incredible inferiority, with everyone older and "therefore" superior. But, with all those "pace-setters" ahead, the youngest can also be driven to exceed all of them.
But that's all just theory... I can't find the stats.
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.
ITT we assume critics of feminism are all men, and are all against equality.
I love this blog. An overreaction to a video which is itself an overreaction gets overreacted to, and then everyone else proceeds to overreact (and overreact to each others' overreactions) in the comments.
On December 07 2009 07:58 CaptainPlatypus wrote: I love this blog. An overreaction to a video which is itself an overreaction gets overreacted to, and then everyone else proceeds to overreact (and overreact to each others' overreactions) in the comments.
The people arguing against feminism in this thread have no idea what it even is, and the people arguing for it haven't made it past the second wave. How delightful.
For example:
On December 01 2009 04:09 koreasilver wrote: Modern feminists have really lost their way. Equality does not equate to sameness.
The video has nothing to do with modern feminism, it's about unequal power in relationships on the personal level (no, not that kind of Power, Foucault) and is actually pretty sound for anyone in a relationship. It doesn't surprise me that it's got CM all riled up, because he's a neanderthal with a keyboard.
It's directed towards women because the actual evidence of abuse in relationships is directed against them. Turning a blind eye towards history and context accomplishes nothing, and likely only aggravates the problem, whether we're talking about individual or societal issues. It's like saying we shouldn't highlight race when talking about the Jim Crow South.
EPT
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).
