|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 16 2016 12:35 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:16 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:14 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:11 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
While i agree that that was dumb, his point about females in (especially rural, which there's alot of) islamic areas still stands.
It's not a secret either. So while i agree that he seems a bit xenophobic, there's quite a few intellectually dishonest people here as well.
Sure, but when he said "I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly", I would point out that it's really the case that "a high majority of all people treat women improperly". Just because women can vote doesn't mean that women are equal or treated fairly, especially in America. Granted, Muslim extremists are particularly shitty when it comes to respecting women, but even American culture continuously objectifies and disrespects women... and we don't even need Muslims to do that. Could I ask what you mean when you say American culture objectifies women? Clearly we're all sexist pigs because we have commercials of girls in bikinis with tig ol' bitties in bikinies eating fat burgers. Would you argue "women are objectified" is a false statement? I don't even talk "US", i talk "western world". I'm wondering how it's both oppressive to force women to wear certain clothes to make them be modest and oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. I don't see the correlation between objectified and oppressive. Do you not think it's an issue then? I think DPB believes it is. I don't follow the second part of that claim- that it's oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. Who said that? It sounds like someone took someone else's (my?) words out of context. I'm pretty sure that "earning as much as a man makes for the same work" and "having autonomy and control of her own body" would be two things that women would love to be able to do, but still can't. I'm suggesting that your notion of "objectifies" might actually be based on misconstruing women's choices in a free society as that society oppressing them. I don't believe the other two points qualify as objectification.
Ah, I see. I think that even today, girls are being raised in an environment where the perfect figure/ bust/ looks/ bodies are so ubiquitous that girls frequently don't feel like they have the choice to be anything "flawed". Plastic surgery, airbrushing, photoshop, etc. It puts unreasonable demands on young women, lowers their self-esteem and perceived self-worth, and external objectification leads to inferiority complexes and self-objectification.
There's a lot of good literature on this, actually. Here's a quote from one source:
"According to Fredrickson and Roberts (1997), the cultural practice of sexual objectification leads to self-objectification, which turns into self-surveillance, causing psychological consequences and mental health risks in victims. Sexual objectification means that women are widely seen as sex objects for male sexual pleasure. This objectification occurs in two areas: (1) interpersonal or social encounters, and (2) media exposure. “Interpersonal or social encounters include catcalls, checking out/ staring at, or gazing at women’s bodies, sexual comments, and harassment." ~ http://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=mcnair
The above published research article goes into a lot of depth on the subject. It really does harm and negatively influence women.
|
On March 16 2016 12:46 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:41 LegalLord wrote:
91% reporting, Trump leads with 0.2%. it's really just jackson county missing which Cruz leads 39% to 37%, so it's going to get closer as we get to 100% reporting... wether it's close enough is another question  Actually Trump is ahead 2.5k votes total and it's currently 25.2k vs 23.8k. Shouldn't be enough
does it matter though, they'll both get 20 delegates each. or is it just a boasting thing to say i won the state
|
On March 16 2016 12:45 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:29 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2016 12:25 darthfoley wrote:On March 16 2016 12:08 kwizach wrote:For the Bernie supporters who didn't see my post: On March 16 2016 11:39 kwizach wrote:
Serious question: how do the left-leaning posters who were supporting Sanders over Hillary in this thread feel about him (1) continuing his campaign and (2) continuing his attacks against Hillary?
I mean, anyone with a grasp of reality surely knows Hillary will be the nominee of the Democratic party, and will be the only left-leaning/progressive/liberal candidate fighting in the general election with a shot at winning. Even if you support Sanders getting his message across, do you not agree that it is counter-productive to keep attacking the Democratic nominee and to fend off attacks on two fronts (Trump & Sanders) instead of focusing on the Republicans? On March 16 2016 12:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2016 11:39 kwizach wrote:
Serious question: how do the left-leaning posters who were supporting Sanders over Hillary in this thread feel about him (1) continuing his campaign and (2) continuing his attacks against Hillary?
I mean, anyone with a grasp of reality surely knows Hillary will be the nominee of the Democratic party, and will be the only left-leaning/progressive/liberal candidate fighting in the general election with a shot at winning. Even if you support Sanders getting his message across, do you not agree that it is counter-productive to keep attacking the Democratic nominee and to fend off attacks on two fronts (Trump & Sanders) instead of focusing on the Republicans? He should keep doing both, have some huge wins in upcoming states and either win or force it to the convention. Hillary v Trump she and America lose. I wish Bernie could win the primary, but the math doesn't work out in his favor unfortunately  Fortunately (to respond to kwizach's question), Bernie has already said repeatedly that even though he wants to win, Hillary would be a far better president than Trump or Cruz or any other Republican running... so I hope that after Bernie eventually concedes, he'll try his best to convince his supporters to vote for Hillary. That's me too: voting for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general election. I think that the shots Bernie is taking at Hillary are tactful and professional enough to not be seen as character assassination or scandal-related, and I don't really think that Bernie is instrumental in wrecking Hillary's chances in the general election. I think Hillary will be mostly to blame if she screws up the general election, and then secondarily Trump's effectiveness at dodging substance and just focusing on Hillary's weak spots. The thing is -- he is attacking her character. He was still making the same attacks tonight as he's been making the last few weeks: she is funded by Wall Street and pharmaceutical companies and therefore she can't be trusted (he simply remains just shy of connecting the dots, to be able to claim he's not running a negative campaign). I was hoping that even if he did continue campaigning to keep pushing his message, he would at least stop the negativity towards Clinton and focus on an uplifting message to contrast progressive ideas and policies with what's going on on the Republican side. Unfortunately, right now he's being a sore loser and he's started to hurt the chances of Democrats instead of helping them. Hopefully he doesn't continue on this path, and it was just the result of being bitter tonight or part of a calculus to get a good deal with Clinton/the DNC for a speaking spot at the convention. oh fuck off man. I'm tired of hearing Clinton supporters whine about "character assassination" when he's literally just stating facts about Wall St, etc. If she didn't want people to call her out on it, she shouldn't have done it in the first place. If she's such a strong general election candidate, then it shouldn't matter and she will still destroy Trump by a landslide!!! Except he's not just stating facts. He's dishonestly arguing that she's in the pocket of Wall Street and "Big Pharma" executives, and it's just not true. And if you look at their respective plans for the financial sector, hers is actually tougher and more serious. In any case, the point is that attacking the person who is now undoubtedly going to be the Democratic nominee is utterly counter-productive if your objective is to support progressive goals and policies and avoid Republican victories in November. Yea, he's lying that she's taken millions of dollars from special interest groups, including wall street, and then she refuses to release the transcripts. Right, forgot about that  I was literally watching CNBC today, full of wall street people talking about how Clinton will be "best for the markets" because she's going to end up being a centrist "pro growth" democrat. He's also lying that she is wishy washy and doesn't support reinstating Glass-Steagall. Spare me.
I stated in my post what he's being deceitful about. Also, her plan for financial reform is rated tougher and more serious than Bernie's by plenty of left-leaning economists. "Spare me."
|
On March 16 2016 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:35 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:16 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:14 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:11 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Sure, but when he said "I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly", I would point out that it's really the case that "a high majority of all people treat women improperly". Just because women can vote doesn't mean that women are equal or treated fairly, especially in America. Granted, Muslim extremists are particularly shitty when it comes to respecting women, but even American culture continuously objectifies and disrespects women... and we don't even need Muslims to do that. Could I ask what you mean when you say American culture objectifies women? Clearly we're all sexist pigs because we have commercials of girls in bikinis with tig ol' bitties in bikinies eating fat burgers. Would you argue "women are objectified" is a false statement? I don't even talk "US", i talk "western world". I'm wondering how it's both oppressive to force women to wear certain clothes to make them be modest and oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. I don't see the correlation between objectified and oppressive. Do you not think it's an issue then? I think DPB believes it is. I don't follow the second part of that claim- that it's oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. Who said that? It sounds like someone took someone else's (my?) words out of context. I'm pretty sure that "earning as much as a man makes for the same work" and "having autonomy and control of her own body" would be two things that women would love to be able to do, but still can't. I'm suggesting that your notion of "objectifies" might actually be based on misconstruing women's choices in a free society as that society oppressing them. I don't believe the other two points qualify as objectification. Ah, I see. I think that even today, girls are being raised in an environment where the perfect figure/ bust/ looks/ bodies are so ubiquitous that girls frequently don't feel like they have the choice to be anything "flawed". Plastic surgery, airbrushing, photoshop, etc. It puts unreasonable demands on young women, lowers their self-esteem and perceived self-worth, and external objectification leads to inferiority complexes and self-objectification. There's a lot of good literature on this, actually. Here's a quote from one source: Show nested quote +"According to Fredrickson and Roberts (1997), the cultural practice of sexual objectification leads to self-objectification, which turns into self-surveillance, causing psychological consequences and mental health risks in victims. Sexual objectification means that women are widely seen as sex objects for male sexual pleasure. This objectification occurs in two areas: (1) interpersonal or social encounters, and (2) media exposure. “Interpersonal or social encounters include catcalls, checking out/ staring at, or gazing at women’s bodies, sexual comments, and harassment." ~ http://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=mcnair The above published research article goes into a lot of depth on the subject. It really does harm and negatively influence women.
*insert same argument with men instead*
You could literally make the same argument...
|
On March 16 2016 12:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 12:31 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:27 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:16 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:14 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:11 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
Could I ask what you mean when you say American culture objectifies women? Clearly we're all sexist pigs because we have commercials of girls in bikinis with tig ol' bitties in bikinies eating fat burgers. Would you argue "women are objectified" is a false statement? I don't even talk "US", i talk "western world". I'm wondering how it's both oppressive to force women to wear certain clothes to make them be modest and oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. I don't see the correlation between objectified and oppressive. Do you not think it's an issue then? I think DPB believes it is. I was under the impression that i asked wei2coolman for his opinion, rather than engaging in a conversation with DarkPlasmaBall. I mean anyone can be objectified, but in America, you can at least get paid a fuck ton if you choose to be objectified. Except for the other 99% of women who are involuntarily objectified and not successful actresses or models or porn stars. They don't even make a fuck ounce more, let alone a fuck ton. The fact people still deny this blows my mind. All you need to do is talk to women about the subject and they will all tell you about being cat calling and unsolicited objectification. I have never spoken to a woman in real that they denies it or says it isn't a problem for them.
I feel that some of these discussions would be a lot more wholesome with more perspectives if we had ~6+ regular female TL posters in this thread, especially during the discussions about women.
|
On March 16 2016 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:35 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:16 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:14 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:11 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Sure, but when he said "I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly", I would point out that it's really the case that "a high majority of all people treat women improperly". Just because women can vote doesn't mean that women are equal or treated fairly, especially in America. Granted, Muslim extremists are particularly shitty when it comes to respecting women, but even American culture continuously objectifies and disrespects women... and we don't even need Muslims to do that. Could I ask what you mean when you say American culture objectifies women? Clearly we're all sexist pigs because we have commercials of girls in bikinis with tig ol' bitties in bikinies eating fat burgers. Would you argue "women are objectified" is a false statement? I don't even talk "US", i talk "western world". I'm wondering how it's both oppressive to force women to wear certain clothes to make them be modest and oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. I don't see the correlation between objectified and oppressive. Do you not think it's an issue then? I think DPB believes it is. I don't follow the second part of that claim- that it's oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. Who said that? It sounds like someone took someone else's (my?) words out of context. I'm pretty sure that "earning as much as a man makes for the same work" and "having autonomy and control of her own body" would be two things that women would love to be able to do, but still can't. I'm suggesting that your notion of "objectifies" might actually be based on misconstruing women's choices in a free society as that society oppressing them. I don't believe the other two points qualify as objectification. Ah, I see. I think that even today, girls are being raised in an environment where the perfect figure/ bust/ looks/ bodies are so ubiquitous that girls frequently don't feel like they have the choice to be anything "flawed". Plastic surgery, airbrushing, photoshop, etc. It puts unreasonable demands on young women, lowers their self-esteem and perceived self-worth, and external objectification leads to inferiority complexes and self-objectification. There's a lot of good literature on this, actually. Here's a quote from one source: Show nested quote +"According to Fredrickson and Roberts (1997), the cultural practice of sexual objectification leads to self-objectification, which turns into self-surveillance, causing psychological consequences and mental health risks in victims. Sexual objectification means that women are widely seen as sex objects for male sexual pleasure. This objectification occurs in two areas: (1) interpersonal or social encounters, and (2) media exposure. “Interpersonal or social encounters include catcalls, checking out/ staring at, or gazing at women’s bodies, sexual comments, and harassment." ~ http://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=mcnair The above published research article goes into a lot of depth on the subject. It really does harm and negatively influence women.
That's the single one thing that i'd say "men" and "boys" are struggling with equally.
And not just since yesteryear, it has always been like that.
Never watched a movie where people cheered because the acne-riddled nerd got the girl, rather than the sportsdude?
|
On March 16 2016 12:51 Doraemon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:46 Toadesstern wrote:On March 16 2016 12:41 LegalLord wrote:
91% reporting, Trump leads with 0.2%. it's really just jackson county missing which Cruz leads 39% to 37%, so it's going to get closer as we get to 100% reporting... wether it's close enough is another question Actually Trump is ahead 2.5k votes total and it's currently 25.2k vs 23.8k. Shouldn't be enough does it matter though, they'll both get 20 delegates each. or is it just a boasting thing to say i won the state
From a maths pov? Don't think it matters but going out of this only getting 2nd or 3rd places for Cruz is pretty horrible from a media pov.
Clinton will get plenty, Trump will get plenty. Maybe something about Sanders winning 1(2?) states and Kasich for Ohio. Cruz is just nowhere to be found to get any coverage.
|
On March 16 2016 12:51 Doraemon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:46 Toadesstern wrote:On March 16 2016 12:41 LegalLord wrote:
91% reporting, Trump leads with 0.2%. it's really just jackson county missing which Cruz leads 39% to 37%, so it's going to get closer as we get to 100% reporting... wether it's close enough is another question Actually Trump is ahead 2.5k votes total and it's currently 25.2k vs 23.8k. Shouldn't be enough does it matter though, they'll both get 20 delegates each. or is it just a boasting thing to say i won the state
Missouri's allocation gives a chunk to the winner I think, doesn't it?
|
On March 16 2016 12:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:51 Doraemon wrote:On March 16 2016 12:46 Toadesstern wrote:On March 16 2016 12:41 LegalLord wrote:
91% reporting, Trump leads with 0.2%. it's really just jackson county missing which Cruz leads 39% to 37%, so it's going to get closer as we get to 100% reporting... wether it's close enough is another question Actually Trump is ahead 2.5k votes total and it's currently 25.2k vs 23.8k. Shouldn't be enough does it matter though, they'll both get 20 delegates each. or is it just a boasting thing to say i won the state Missouri's allocation gives a chunk to the winner I think, doesn't it?
i'm not sure :s just taking default position of distribution by voting %
"If no one gets an absolute majority, the top vote-getter in each of eight congressional districts will win five bound delegates. The statewide winner will get nine more, for a total of 49 delegates.
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article35194227.html#storylink=cpy"
|
On March 16 2016 12:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 12:36 xDaunt wrote:On March 16 2016 12:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 12:31 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:27 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:16 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:14 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:11 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
Would you argue "women are objectified" is a false statement?
I don't even talk "US", i talk "western world".
I'm wondering how it's both oppressive to force women to wear certain clothes to make them be modest and oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. I don't see the correlation between objectified and oppressive. Do you not think it's an issue then? I think DPB believes it is. I was under the impression that i asked wei2coolman for his opinion, rather than engaging in a conversation with DarkPlasmaBall. I mean anyone can be objectified, but in America, you can at least get paid a fuck ton if you choose to be objectified. Except for the other 99% of women who are involuntarily objectified and not successful actresses or models or porn stars. They don't even make a fuck ounce more, let alone a fuck ton. You'd have to rewire the entire straight male population to fix that problem. Good luck. I think there's a difference between recognizing that a female job applicant is hot and recognizing that a female job applicant is qualified, and I think that men have the capacity to make a serious, substantial decision with their heads and not just with their dicks. At least, I hope so You'd be very wrong.
And again, the point is that it shouldn't be that way. You conceding that sexual objectification and double standards consistently occur doesn't mean that those things should be acceptable.
|
On March 16 2016 12:51 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 12:35 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:16 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:14 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:11 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
Could I ask what you mean when you say American culture objectifies women? Clearly we're all sexist pigs because we have commercials of girls in bikinis with tig ol' bitties in bikinies eating fat burgers. Would you argue "women are objectified" is a false statement? I don't even talk "US", i talk "western world". I'm wondering how it's both oppressive to force women to wear certain clothes to make them be modest and oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. I don't see the correlation between objectified and oppressive. Do you not think it's an issue then? I think DPB believes it is. I don't follow the second part of that claim- that it's oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. Who said that? It sounds like someone took someone else's (my?) words out of context. I'm pretty sure that "earning as much as a man makes for the same work" and "having autonomy and control of her own body" would be two things that women would love to be able to do, but still can't. I'm suggesting that your notion of "objectifies" might actually be based on misconstruing women's choices in a free society as that society oppressing them. I don't believe the other two points qualify as objectification. Ah, I see. I think that even today, girls are being raised in an environment where the perfect figure/ bust/ looks/ bodies are so ubiquitous that girls frequently don't feel like they have the choice to be anything "flawed". Plastic surgery, airbrushing, photoshop, etc. It puts unreasonable demands on young women, lowers their self-esteem and perceived self-worth, and external objectification leads to inferiority complexes and self-objectification. There's a lot of good literature on this, actually. Here's a quote from one source: "According to Fredrickson and Roberts (1997), the cultural practice of sexual objectification leads to self-objectification, which turns into self-surveillance, causing psychological consequences and mental health risks in victims. Sexual objectification means that women are widely seen as sex objects for male sexual pleasure. This objectification occurs in two areas: (1) interpersonal or social encounters, and (2) media exposure. “Interpersonal or social encounters include catcalls, checking out/ staring at, or gazing at women’s bodies, sexual comments, and harassment." ~ http://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=mcnair The above published research article goes into a lot of depth on the subject. It really does harm and negatively influence women. *insert same argument with men instead* You could literally make the same argument...
This is just too easy:
![[image loading]](http://40.media.tumblr.com/6c4ef001d7ba0368fdec64e5f9154956/tumblr_n8th19rl8p1smi45lo1_1280.jpg)
|
On March 16 2016 12:52 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 12:35 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:16 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:14 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:11 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
Could I ask what you mean when you say American culture objectifies women? Clearly we're all sexist pigs because we have commercials of girls in bikinis with tig ol' bitties in bikinies eating fat burgers. Would you argue "women are objectified" is a false statement? I don't even talk "US", i talk "western world". I'm wondering how it's both oppressive to force women to wear certain clothes to make them be modest and oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. I don't see the correlation between objectified and oppressive. Do you not think it's an issue then? I think DPB believes it is. I don't follow the second part of that claim- that it's oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. Who said that? It sounds like someone took someone else's (my?) words out of context. I'm pretty sure that "earning as much as a man makes for the same work" and "having autonomy and control of her own body" would be two things that women would love to be able to do, but still can't. I'm suggesting that your notion of "objectifies" might actually be based on misconstruing women's choices in a free society as that society oppressing them. I don't believe the other two points qualify as objectification. Ah, I see. I think that even today, girls are being raised in an environment where the perfect figure/ bust/ looks/ bodies are so ubiquitous that girls frequently don't feel like they have the choice to be anything "flawed". Plastic surgery, airbrushing, photoshop, etc. It puts unreasonable demands on young women, lowers their self-esteem and perceived self-worth, and external objectification leads to inferiority complexes and self-objectification. There's a lot of good literature on this, actually. Here's a quote from one source: "According to Fredrickson and Roberts (1997), the cultural practice of sexual objectification leads to self-objectification, which turns into self-surveillance, causing psychological consequences and mental health risks in victims. Sexual objectification means that women are widely seen as sex objects for male sexual pleasure. This objectification occurs in two areas: (1) interpersonal or social encounters, and (2) media exposure. “Interpersonal or social encounters include catcalls, checking out/ staring at, or gazing at women’s bodies, sexual comments, and harassment." ~ http://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=mcnair The above published research article goes into a lot of depth on the subject. It really does harm and negatively influence women. That's the single one thing that i'd say "men" and "boys" are struggling with equally. And not just since yesteryear, it has always been like that. Never watched a movie where people cheered because the acne-riddled nerd got the girl, rather than the sportsdude?
Ever watched a movie with an acne-riddled girl? Yeah... me either.
|
On March 16 2016 12:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:38 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 12:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 12:31 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:27 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:16 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:14 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:11 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote:
[quote]
Clearly we're all sexist pigs because we have commercials of girls in bikinis with tig ol' bitties in bikinies eating fat burgers. Would you argue "women are objectified" is a false statement? I don't even talk "US", i talk "western world". I'm wondering how it's both oppressive to force women to wear certain clothes to make them be modest and oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. I don't see the correlation between objectified and oppressive. Do you not think it's an issue then? I think DPB believes it is. I was under the impression that i asked wei2coolman for his opinion, rather than engaging in a conversation with DarkPlasmaBall. I mean anyone can be objectified, but in America, you can at least get paid a fuck ton if you choose to be objectified. Except for the other 99% of women who are involuntarily objectified and not successful actresses or models or porn stars. They don't even make a fuck ounce more, let alone a fuck ton. The fact people still deny this blows my mind. All you need to do is talk to women about the subject and they will all tell you about being cat calling and unsolicited objectification. I have never spoken to a woman in real that they denies it or says it isn't a problem for them. I feel that some of these discussions would be a lot more wholesome with more perspectives if we had ~6+ regular female TL posters in this thread, especially during the discussions about women.
Pretty sure I know how that would end, but its a nice thought.
|
On March 16 2016 12:51 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:45 darthfoley wrote:On March 16 2016 12:29 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2016 12:25 darthfoley wrote:On March 16 2016 12:08 kwizach wrote:For the Bernie supporters who didn't see my post: On March 16 2016 11:39 kwizach wrote:
Serious question: how do the left-leaning posters who were supporting Sanders over Hillary in this thread feel about him (1) continuing his campaign and (2) continuing his attacks against Hillary?
I mean, anyone with a grasp of reality surely knows Hillary will be the nominee of the Democratic party, and will be the only left-leaning/progressive/liberal candidate fighting in the general election with a shot at winning. Even if you support Sanders getting his message across, do you not agree that it is counter-productive to keep attacking the Democratic nominee and to fend off attacks on two fronts (Trump & Sanders) instead of focusing on the Republicans? On March 16 2016 12:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2016 11:39 kwizach wrote:
Serious question: how do the left-leaning posters who were supporting Sanders over Hillary in this thread feel about him (1) continuing his campaign and (2) continuing his attacks against Hillary?
I mean, anyone with a grasp of reality surely knows Hillary will be the nominee of the Democratic party, and will be the only left-leaning/progressive/liberal candidate fighting in the general election with a shot at winning. Even if you support Sanders getting his message across, do you not agree that it is counter-productive to keep attacking the Democratic nominee and to fend off attacks on two fronts (Trump & Sanders) instead of focusing on the Republicans? He should keep doing both, have some huge wins in upcoming states and either win or force it to the convention. Hillary v Trump she and America lose. I wish Bernie could win the primary, but the math doesn't work out in his favor unfortunately Fortunately (to respond to kwizach's question), Bernie has already said repeatedly that even though he wants to win, Hillary would be a far better president than Trump or Cruz or any other Republican running... so I hope that after Bernie eventually concedes, he'll try his best to convince his supporters to vote for Hillary. That's me too: voting for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general election. I think that the shots Bernie is taking at Hillary are tactful and professional enough to not be seen as character assassination or scandal-related, and I don't really think that Bernie is instrumental in wrecking Hillary's chances in the general election. I think Hillary will be mostly to blame if she screws up the general election, and then secondarily Trump's effectiveness at dodging substance and just focusing on Hillary's weak spots. The thing is -- he is attacking her character. He was still making the same attacks tonight as he's been making the last few weeks: she is funded by Wall Street and pharmaceutical companies and therefore she can't be trusted (he simply remains just shy of connecting the dots, to be able to claim he's not running a negative campaign). I was hoping that even if he did continue campaigning to keep pushing his message, he would at least stop the negativity towards Clinton and focus on an uplifting message to contrast progressive ideas and policies with what's going on on the Republican side. Unfortunately, right now he's being a sore loser and he's started to hurt the chances of Democrats instead of helping them. Hopefully he doesn't continue on this path, and it was just the result of being bitter tonight or part of a calculus to get a good deal with Clinton/the DNC for a speaking spot at the convention. oh fuck off man. I'm tired of hearing Clinton supporters whine about "character assassination" when he's literally just stating facts about Wall St, etc. If she didn't want people to call her out on it, she shouldn't have done it in the first place. If she's such a strong general election candidate, then it shouldn't matter and she will still destroy Trump by a landslide!!! Except he's not just stating facts. He's dishonestly arguing that she's in the pocket of Wall Street and "Big Pharma" executives, and it's just not true. And if you look at their respective plans for the financial sector, hers is actually tougher and more serious. In any case, the point is that attacking the person who is now undoubtedly going to be the Democratic nominee is utterly counter-productive if your objective is to support progressive goals and policies and avoid Republican victories in November. Yea, he's lying that she's taken millions of dollars from special interest groups, including wall street, and then she refuses to release the transcripts. Right, forgot about that I was literally watching CNBC today, full of wall street people talking about how Clinton will be "best for the markets" because she's going to end up being a centrist "pro growth" democrat. He's also lying that she is wishy washy and doesn't support reinstating Glass-Steagall. Spare me. I stated in my post what he's being deceitful about. Also, her plan for financial reform is rated tougher and more serious than Bernie's by plenty of left-leaning economists. "Spare me."
and i'm sure she's going to get money out of politics too!!
|
On March 16 2016 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:35 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:16 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:14 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:11 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Sure, but when he said "I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly", I would point out that it's really the case that "a high majority of all people treat women improperly". Just because women can vote doesn't mean that women are equal or treated fairly, especially in America. Granted, Muslim extremists are particularly shitty when it comes to respecting women, but even American culture continuously objectifies and disrespects women... and we don't even need Muslims to do that. Could I ask what you mean when you say American culture objectifies women? Clearly we're all sexist pigs because we have commercials of girls in bikinis with tig ol' bitties in bikinies eating fat burgers. Would you argue "women are objectified" is a false statement? I don't even talk "US", i talk "western world". I'm wondering how it's both oppressive to force women to wear certain clothes to make them be modest and oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. I don't see the correlation between objectified and oppressive. Do you not think it's an issue then? I think DPB believes it is. I don't follow the second part of that claim- that it's oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. Who said that? It sounds like someone took someone else's (my?) words out of context. I'm pretty sure that "earning as much as a man makes for the same work" and "having autonomy and control of her own body" would be two things that women would love to be able to do, but still can't. I'm suggesting that your notion of "objectifies" might actually be based on misconstruing women's choices in a free society as that society oppressing them. I don't believe the other two points qualify as objectification. Ah, I see. I think that even today, girls are being raised in an environment where the perfect figure/ bust/ looks/ bodies are so ubiquitous that girls frequently don't feel like they have the choice to be anything "flawed". Plastic surgery, airbrushing, photoshop, etc. It puts unreasonable demands on young women, lowers their self-esteem and perceived self-worth, and external objectification leads to inferiority complexes and self-objectification. There's a lot of good literature on this, actually. Here's a quote from one source: Show nested quote +"According to Fredrickson and Roberts (1997), the cultural practice of sexual objectification leads to self-objectification, which turns into self-surveillance, causing psychological consequences and mental health risks in victims. Sexual objectification means that women are widely seen as sex objects for male sexual pleasure. This objectification occurs in two areas: (1) interpersonal or social encounters, and (2) media exposure. “Interpersonal or social encounters include catcalls, checking out/ staring at, or gazing at women’s bodies, sexual comments, and harassment." ~ http://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=mcnair The above published research article goes into a lot of depth on the subject. It really does harm and negatively influence women.
This is a real problem, but it, unfortunately, is a consequence of men being visual creatures when it comes to all things sex. However, it isn't something that's every going to be solved. My daughter is five, and she already has developed a preoccupation with being "pretty," which I don't like. Fortunately for her, she'll never have to worry about being ugly, but my job is to make sure that she understands that her self-worth is not tied to her appearance and desirability to the opposite sex. This is much easier said than done.
|
If a woman is born with a decent figure, all she has to do is eat like a normal person.
That man has to take steroids or train his entire life. Though an EMT recently told me anyone that big is always taking something. I don't know if that's true but w/e =o
On March 16 2016 12:55 Acrofales wrote:
Ever watched a movie with an acne-riddled girl? Yeah... me either.
Acne in general is frowned upon in movies.
They doctor it out of marines photos as well etc.
|
On March 16 2016 12:55 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:51 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 12:35 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:16 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:14 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:11 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
Would you argue "women are objectified" is a false statement?
I don't even talk "US", i talk "western world".
I'm wondering how it's both oppressive to force women to wear certain clothes to make them be modest and oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. I don't see the correlation between objectified and oppressive. Do you not think it's an issue then? I think DPB believes it is. I don't follow the second part of that claim- that it's oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. Who said that? It sounds like someone took someone else's (my?) words out of context. I'm pretty sure that "earning as much as a man makes for the same work" and "having autonomy and control of her own body" would be two things that women would love to be able to do, but still can't. I'm suggesting that your notion of "objectifies" might actually be based on misconstruing women's choices in a free society as that society oppressing them. I don't believe the other two points qualify as objectification. Ah, I see. I think that even today, girls are being raised in an environment where the perfect figure/ bust/ looks/ bodies are so ubiquitous that girls frequently don't feel like they have the choice to be anything "flawed". Plastic surgery, airbrushing, photoshop, etc. It puts unreasonable demands on young women, lowers their self-esteem and perceived self-worth, and external objectification leads to inferiority complexes and self-objectification. There's a lot of good literature on this, actually. Here's a quote from one source: "According to Fredrickson and Roberts (1997), the cultural practice of sexual objectification leads to self-objectification, which turns into self-surveillance, causing psychological consequences and mental health risks in victims. Sexual objectification means that women are widely seen as sex objects for male sexual pleasure. This objectification occurs in two areas: (1) interpersonal or social encounters, and (2) media exposure. “Interpersonal or social encounters include catcalls, checking out/ staring at, or gazing at women’s bodies, sexual comments, and harassment." ~ http://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=mcnair The above published research article goes into a lot of depth on the subject. It really does harm and negatively influence women. *insert same argument with men instead* You could literally make the same argument... This is just too easy:
Have you watched those old He-Man cartoons recently? I'm pretty fucking sure that he's gay.
|
3000 vote difference between trump and cruz at the moment o_o
|
On March 16 2016 12:55 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:52 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 12:35 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 12:22 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:16 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:14 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:11 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote:
[quote]
Clearly we're all sexist pigs because we have commercials of girls in bikinis with tig ol' bitties in bikinies eating fat burgers. Would you argue "women are objectified" is a false statement? I don't even talk "US", i talk "western world". I'm wondering how it's both oppressive to force women to wear certain clothes to make them be modest and oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. I don't see the correlation between objectified and oppressive. Do you not think it's an issue then? I think DPB believes it is. I don't follow the second part of that claim- that it's oppressive to let women wear and do what they want. Who said that? It sounds like someone took someone else's (my?) words out of context. I'm pretty sure that "earning as much as a man makes for the same work" and "having autonomy and control of her own body" would be two things that women would love to be able to do, but still can't. I'm suggesting that your notion of "objectifies" might actually be based on misconstruing women's choices in a free society as that society oppressing them. I don't believe the other two points qualify as objectification. Ah, I see. I think that even today, girls are being raised in an environment where the perfect figure/ bust/ looks/ bodies are so ubiquitous that girls frequently don't feel like they have the choice to be anything "flawed". Plastic surgery, airbrushing, photoshop, etc. It puts unreasonable demands on young women, lowers their self-esteem and perceived self-worth, and external objectification leads to inferiority complexes and self-objectification. There's a lot of good literature on this, actually. Here's a quote from one source: "According to Fredrickson and Roberts (1997), the cultural practice of sexual objectification leads to self-objectification, which turns into self-surveillance, causing psychological consequences and mental health risks in victims. Sexual objectification means that women are widely seen as sex objects for male sexual pleasure. This objectification occurs in two areas: (1) interpersonal or social encounters, and (2) media exposure. “Interpersonal or social encounters include catcalls, checking out/ staring at, or gazing at women’s bodies, sexual comments, and harassment." ~ http://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=mcnair The above published research article goes into a lot of depth on the subject. It really does harm and negatively influence women. That's the single one thing that i'd say "men" and "boys" are struggling with equally. And not just since yesteryear, it has always been like that. Never watched a movie where people cheered because the acne-riddled nerd got the girl, rather than the sportsdude? Ever watched a movie with an acne-riddled girl? Yeah... me either.
Not entirely sure what you're trying to argue.
That men/boys don't struggle with "not being pretty enough"?
Have you watched those old He-Man cartoons recently? I'm pretty fucking sure that he's gay.
"insert he-man singing gif here"
Good for him though. Just imagine him being together with Neil Patrick Harris. That'd be amazing.
|
It's also 50.7% Clinton vs 48.5% Sanders in Illinois btw o/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
