|
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 13:07 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 13:04 xDaunt wrote:On March 16 2016 13:02 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 13:01 xDaunt wrote:On March 16 2016 12:59 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:55 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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"? He's correctly pointing out that men are pigs when it comes to the visual appearance of women. I never ever disputed that. What i'm saying is that there's no difference the other way around either. I disagree. Women are far less visually-oriented when it comes to finding partners than men are. I think you two need to discuss this in more detail in PMs. If you're looking at job applications, a "more attractive" person, whether male or female, is more likely to win when compared to similar candidates, whether the decider is male or female. On the other hand, if you look at sexual behaviour, men are more visual than women (skip the gym, hit the books, gents).
"Stop arguing about this in the thread, but let me throw my opinion in first".
Heh.
edit: it's rather easy. You have two guys. More or less equal in characters, monies, job and whatnot. One is ugly as the night, the other one is George Clooney.
Every person who's arguing "looks don't matter" regardless of sex is a liar.
|
Canada11377 Posts
On March 16 2016 11:24 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 11:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 16 2016 11:17 SK.Testie wrote:On March 16 2016 11:05 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 11:01 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 10:57 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 10:56 kwizach wrote:
Can you guys please keep your posts about refugees in Germany and Sweden to the European politics thread? Yes, please return to the Stormfront thread. While i agree that we shouldn't derail further (i'll stop now): We are in the stormfront thread. Just as a sidenote. Stormfront is US based. Yeah, I just liked it more when it wasn't here. But now they will bravely face the mean liberals that might call them racist. They have built up the courage to come out of the shadows and live full lives, proudly showing their faces to the world and voicing their opinions, no matter how badly their feelings might be hurt by the r-word. Ok, first off. Calling people who disagree with you users from stormfront despite showing no allegiance to said thing is retarded. It's literally, "Our argument has no legs to stand on. Must be super horrible racists". I just posted a pretty civil german father with genuine worries for his daughter. "lol stormfront". Jimmy Carter did something not entirely similar but similar during the Iranian crisis with Iranians. I think you have real people who dislike higher rates of crime in their area. That's all it is. They think, "this is my country, I should have a say on who is allowed in and who isn't". 66% of Americans apparently think they have that say. Stop attempting to take a moral high ground you do not have, and have no right of claim to. I don't have an immigration policy, because I'm not running a country. But off the top of my head if I had one and I was a rich nation, I'd take mostly those whom want to work. And those whom are rich and educated. Much like Japans immigration policy. Also, despite every Republican attempt to thwart Trump they really should just STFU and give him the nomination already. Unlike Bernie, he's winning the popular vote by a landslide. So if the Republicans try to screw him over they're going to be legitimately angry and that will just further diminish the Republican party. He's truly crashing it with no survivors. Fun fact (or at least I'm pretty sure it's a fact based on the states I can remember): Bernie has won a higher share of the popular vote than Trump. And no, barring immigration from a nation is not the same as impossibly blocking immigration of an entire religion. He wouldn't if there were more candidates running. Naturally Trump's numbers will go up now that there are fewer candidates. Also blocking a religion is not as extreme or uncommon as you'd think. USSR did just fine for a long time by eliminating religion, and many if not most countries in the world take a strong stance in ensuring things stay the way that they are desired. Its only the liberal movement in western countries that has created the present situation. Have an expanded view, the only limit is your imagination, nothing that is has to be, we just choose to take a lot of things as given.
wat.
Blocking religion? That's how you describe the USSR regime for Christianity? Hauling pastors off to the gulags, 50,000 clergy killed, forcible closure of churches, banning the Bible to the point where there were Bible smugglers? Does that sound like a (classical) liberal society to you? An open and free democratic society? I cannot believe USSR's totalitarian characteristics are being lauded as a legitimate method for a free society.
|
On March 16 2016 12:59 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:55 Acrofales wrote: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:
[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. 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"?
Not really the point I was trying to make, which was quite a bit more nuanced. I was trying to get you to reflect on the point YOU were trying to make with your quip about the acne-riddled nerd getting the girl. Everybody roots for the acne-riddled nerd over the jock. Absolutely. Message of the movie: it's okay to be an acne-riddled nerd and you will still find a pretty girl. This directly contradicts the point you were trying to make that guys are objectified just as much in the media as women, and are under just as much pressure to conform to the ideal.
There are few, if any at all, movies in which an ugly woman plays the same role as that acne-riddled nerd you describe. The closest I can get to thinking of an actress who would not conform to female beauty standards is Gwendoline Christie, and her main claim to fame is in a series which deliberately breaks with multiple conventions and taboos.
|
On March 16 2016 13:11 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 13:09 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 13:06 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 13:04 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 12:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 16 2016 12:55 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2016 12:51 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 12:35 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
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) Have you watched those old He-Man cartoons recently? I'm pretty fucking sure that he's gay. Also he is the embodiment of male power fantasy. While Barbie is all about her friends and Ken, rather than crushing her enemies beneath her high heel. Children toys are so filled with male empowerment and convincing girls their self worth is based on friendship and how attractive they are. ![[image loading]](http://www.warnerbros.com/sites/default/files/magic_mike_hero.jpg) Remember, this is "male empowerment" No, that is a movie about female empowerment and that men being sexy for women is totally fine. And women being attracted to those men is also fine. I think you missed the point of that movie. This is some next level doublethink.
No, its that you are really bad at understanding the point of movies.
|
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?
That's exactly the point though: in those movies, the girl is a prize to be won. She's the princess who needs to be rescued. She's the object that the boys need to compete for. She's defined by her worth to men.
|
On March 16 2016 13:13 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:59 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:55 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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"? Not really the point I was trying to make, which was quite a bit more nuanced. I was trying to get you to reflect on the point YOU were trying to make with your quip about the acne-riddled nerd getting the girl. Everybody roots for the acne-riddled nerd over the jock. Absolutely. Message of the movie: it's okay to be an acne-riddled nerd and you will still find a pretty girl. This directly contradicts the point you were trying to make that guys are objectified just as much in the media as women, and are under just as much pressure to conform to the ideal. There are few, if any at all, movies in which an ugly woman plays the same role as that acne-riddled nerd you describe. The closest I can get to thinking of an actress who would not conform to female beauty standards is Gwendoline Christie, and her main claim to fame is in a series which deliberately breaks with multiple conventions and taboos.
Ah okay, yeah, you're right there: but you missed one important thing.
It's not just an ugly nerd. It's always the heroic ugly nerd, saving either: his school. The world. A dark lord. Etc etc.
So while you're right about "looks", there's still the "role". There's no movie where the scared ugly nerd who runs from the desaster gets the girl - it's always, literally always, the one that does shit i personally wouldn't do.
That's exactly the point though: in those movies, the girl is a prize to be won. She's the princess who needs to be rescued. She's the object that the boys need to compete for. She's defined by her worth to men.
See above. I agree that the beauty is "a prize", but that doesn't mean there's no role imposed on the male, be it an ugly nerd or the buff jock.
|
On March 16 2016 13:04 Plansix wrote:
I think they are just less open about it. All of my female friend are very open about guys they think are hot enough to fuck. Like super blunt about it.
It's weird, it's like almost more acceptable because if guys do it it sounds sexist. I don't care though.
On March 16 2016 13:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:44 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 16 2016 12:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2016 12:30 oneofthem wrote:On March 16 2016 12:16 ticklishmusic wrote:Also, legit terrifying. Not confirmed if it's real, but Bernie people on Reddit doing some crazy manipulation + Show Spoiler + lol i know where you got this from lol. That people think that's remotely serious, but the video taped breaking of rules is some sort of a conspiracy, is this campaign in a nutshell. Deflection is all ya got left it seems. It's okay, message me for actual factual Hillary chat if you're ever interested. Lol deflection of what? If you had any idea what was actually going on on the subreddit you would realize how ridiculous that post was in the first place. I was just merely pointing out how absurd the post was when compared to the obvious documented manipulation the Clinton campaign has done.
Turns out it's more than likely fake *shrugs and crumples up tinfoil hat*
Both campaigns do dirty stuff GH. Generally speaking, I don't find it worth mentioning. I mean, you guys made a fake Hillary/ Rahm ad (not that it won Illinois).
Neck in neck in MO. 49 to 49.8 right now.
|
On March 16 2016 13:14 DarkPlasmaBall 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? That's exactly the point though: in those movies, the girl is a prize to be won. She's the princess who needs to be rescued. She's the object that the boys need to compete for. She's defined by her worth to men.
And nerds are these magical, special creatures that are vindicated by a girl finally seeing how special they are. That girls didn't like them because they are shallow and have bad taste in boys. Not because the nerd is just a huge jerk, that couldn't' be the case ever.
|
On March 16 2016 13:13 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:59 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:55 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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"? Not really the point I was trying to make, which was quite a bit more nuanced. I was trying to get you to reflect on the point YOU were trying to make with your quip about the acne-riddled nerd getting the girl. Everybody roots for the acne-riddled nerd over the jock. Absolutely. Message of the movie: it's okay to be an acne-riddled nerd and you will still find a pretty girl. This directly contradicts the point you were trying to make that guys are objectified just as much in the media as women, and are under just as much pressure to conform to the ideal. There are few, if any at all, movies in which an ugly woman plays the same role as that acne-riddled nerd you describe. The closest I can get to thinking of an actress who would not conform to female beauty standards is Gwendoline Christie, and her main claim to fame is in a series which deliberately breaks with multiple conventions and taboos.
Does Shrek count as both with the ugly guy getting the good looking girl and her basicly turning ugly?
Was that what it was about?... I remember the donkey making out with a dragon though
|
I don't know who started this nonsense, but this is NOT THE MEN VS FEMINISM DEBATE CLUB!
So could we get back on track to U.S. POLITICS?!
|
On March 16 2016 13:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 13:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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:
[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. 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? That's exactly the point though: in those movies, the girl is a prize to be won. She's the princess who needs to be rescued. She's the object that the boys need to compete for. She's defined by her worth to men. And nerds are these magical, special creatures that are vindicated by a girl finally seeing how special they are. That girls didn't like them because they are shallow and have bad taste in boys. Not because the nerd is just a huge jerk, that couldn't' be the case ever.
You mean the jock?
|
On March 16 2016 13:18 thePunGun wrote:
I don't know who started this nonsense, but this is NOT THE MEN VS FEMINISM DEBATE CLUB!
So could we get back on track to U.S. POLITICS?!
Ok, lets talk about how people were telling Hillary she should smile more and keep her voice lower so to be more pleasing and less aggressive. 
|
Pretty funny to see conservatives rail against "ze Islam" for how women are treated in many Islamic countries, yet once you start pointing out the real inequalities that remain between men and women in Western countries, and which disproportionally affect women negatively, suddenly there's no-one left to accept the facts and defend women. And the same posters rail against "liberal hypocrisy". The irony is strong with this one.
|
On March 16 2016 13:17 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 13:13 Acrofales wrote:On March 16 2016 12:59 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 12:55 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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"? Not really the point I was trying to make, which was quite a bit more nuanced. I was trying to get you to reflect on the point YOU were trying to make with your quip about the acne-riddled nerd getting the girl. Everybody roots for the acne-riddled nerd over the jock. Absolutely. Message of the movie: it's okay to be an acne-riddled nerd and you will still find a pretty girl. This directly contradicts the point you were trying to make that guys are objectified just as much in the media as women, and are under just as much pressure to conform to the ideal. There are few, if any at all, movies in which an ugly woman plays the same role as that acne-riddled nerd you describe. The closest I can get to thinking of an actress who would not conform to female beauty standards is Gwendoline Christie, and her main claim to fame is in a series which deliberately breaks with multiple conventions and taboos. Does Shrek count as both with the ugly guy getting the good looking girl and her basicly turning ugly? Was that what it was about?... I remember the donkey making out with a dragon though
Fun fact, Shrek is a giant diss to Disney after Katzenberger got fired.
|
On March 16 2016 13:18 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 13:17 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 13:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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:
[quote]
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? That's exactly the point though: in those movies, the girl is a prize to be won. She's the princess who needs to be rescued. She's the object that the boys need to compete for. She's defined by her worth to men. And nerds are these magical, special creatures that are vindicated by a girl finally seeing how special they are. That girls didn't like them because they are shallow and have bad taste in boys. Not because the nerd is just a huge jerk, that couldn't' be the case ever. You mean the jock?
The jock is clearly bad and not the nerd. He is a bad boy and the thing girls want because they are told. The nerd is magic and unloved because the world is against him and only a magical girl can see his true worth. So the movies tell us. The girl is a prize for the nerd being good and magical. She has not agency and cannot like the jock for her own reasons. She is validation that the nerd is a good, worthy person.
|
On March 16 2016 12:48 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:42 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2016 12:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 12:08 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2016 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 11:53 farvacola wrote:On March 16 2016 11:48 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:44 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:42 SolaR- wrote:
[quote]
Not really ignorant, its realistic. Sure not all muslims are terrorists. But I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly. You can't argue that. Most religions are fundamentally horrible, Islam being one of the worst. And what makes it even worse is that there has been little reform in comparison to other judiac religions, actually its probably gotten worse.
Cite something. What is your background/education to make any of these determinations? First get rid of your bias. You are asking me to site my background/education when there has been tons of assertions from the other side who have not provided their qualifications or facts. Just useless rhetoric and ideology. article on isis ability to make fake passports. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/isis-passports/ And this, my friends, is a perfect example of xenophobic logic at work. Dude made a variety of strong theological claims relative to Islam, was prompted for some sort of authority or citation in support of said claims, and then promptly linked a cnn article on Isis' ability to make fake passports. lol 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. Your cultural relativism is ridiculous. In large rural muslim areas, convincing the head of the house that woman should vote, made as much sense to them, than if I told you your cat should vote. Women are considered no different than cattle. If you ask a father about his sons, he will answer two; if you ask him about his property, he will say 3 goats, 1 camel and 2 daughters. And that's why I said "Muslim extremists are particularly shitty", but that doesn't mean that America isn't automatically treating women fairly. There's a large gap in the spectrum of sexual equality between "men and women are treated fairly" and "goats and women are treated equally", and America is somewhere in that gap. "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"." You brought it up as if the situation is somewhat similar, just different degree. It is not; it is a different kind. Woman are basically slaves in the muslim world. The thread went from border control to Islam to identity politics, in this case Women's issues. This is correct, what we were talking about is not remotely the same as objectification of women. This is something that isn't really nearly as evident as it was in yesterdays world. Because women can choose what they want to do with their life, very very freely. Many prostitutes in Canada don't become prostitutes because they are having a hard life, it's because it's very easy, fast, untaxable money. Many women in Canada use this objectification to their advantage as well. And many of them have an army of betas around that they can pick and choose from. I know a girl who literally uses tinder as a free meal finder. She's a model and has (by her words) used a hundred+ men for free meals. I was like.. "wtf over a hundred?" and she was like "Yeah man it's easy". Women don't need you to fight for them, they're doing fine in the western world. They're doing much worse off in literally every other part of the world though.
I'm not a fan of dismissing civil rights in one area because some groups are worse off in other areas. I'd much rather advocate for both. American women (and other prejudged groups) shouldn't need to wait their turn for the rest of the world to be better off than them before asking for help.
On March 16 2016 12:56 SK.Testie wrote:
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
Yeahhh that's definitely not true. Regardless of your sex, a high metabolism makes things so much easier for staying in shape. I was blessed with one and my fiancee wasn't, and she has to scrutinize over everything she eats, whereas I eat like a pig and still maintain an athletic build pretty easily. I need to get better at that before my metabolism really slows x.x But anyway, both men and women can work their asses off for their perfect figure, especially if genetics isn't really helping.
|
K enough of this shitty womens talk.
Time to MAKE THIS THREAD GREAT AGAIN.
So, Sanders.
Socialism:
Sell utopian idea that goes against human nature to an idealistic lower class that is actually just voting self-interest but pretending they are the holier than thou ones. (Despite really having a problem with freedom of speech apparently). As usual their campaign suffers from identity politics and everyone wanting a voice rather than just focusing on what's important. You see thugs in chicago, you saw commies, you saw man-hating feminists, and you saw the reasonable supporters watching in horror.
So Sanders, the communist Jew stays in the race as long as possible sucking up the millions of shekels he's collected from poor students nationwide. He eventually bows out gives Hillary the nod because "we must defeat the evil racist sexist horrible man Trump". What a story.
|
On March 16 2016 13:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 13:18 thePunGun wrote:
I don't know who started this nonsense, but this is NOT THE MEN VS FEMINISM DEBATE CLUB!
So could we get back on track to U.S. POLITICS?! Ok, lets talk about how people were telling Hillary she should smile more and keep her voice lower so to be more pleasing and less aggressive.
We all want our women to be pretty and silent in the kitchen....according to this thread...but we're not living in the 50s anymore.
I don't like Hillary's views and think she's just as corrupt as any of her male counterparts....but I can live with the fact that she's a female who wants power....
|
On March 16 2016 13:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Yeahhh that's definitely not true. Regardless of your sex, a high metabolism makes things so much easier for staying in shape. I was blessed with one and my fiancee wasn't, and she has to scrutinize over everything she eats, whereas I eat like a pig and still maintain an athletic build pretty easily. I need to get better at that before my metabolism really slows x.x But anyway, both men and women can work their asses off for their perfect figure, especially if genetics isn't really helping.
K this is definitely not political. But no. Fuck you, fuck every person like you. If you think it's hard to lose weight, you are a weak fucking coward of a human being. Fuck off. I can lose weight in a fucking heartbeat by eating this every single day. And you can too, and everyone can too. Any fatties in this thread listen up, Testies super diet is here.
Morning: Bowl of kale with vinegar (1 batch of kale)
Lunch: Bowl of kale with vinegar (1 batch of kale)
Supper: 1/2 cup rice, 1 piece of salmon, 3-4 cups of vegetables of your choosing.
No fancy sauces, just actual spices that are healthy and maybe some lemon or lime juice.
You will lose weight. No snacks, no cheating, no cheat days, just pure easy autistic discipline.
Edit: not only will you lose weight, you will lose weight extremely fast. I dieted before and exercised 1-2h a day without losing weight for 3-6 months. I switched to Testies king diet and 20pounds in like 2 months. Not even kidding. Shit just melted away.
User was warned for this post
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Gr8ErBO.png)
