On February 26 2014 03:56 ComaDose wrote:Uh yeah, male oppression exists in my vocabulary why are you pretending to know my vocabulary. why are you talking about 50/50 you just picked a bunch of stuff out of thin air i didn't assume anything about what anyone wants? did you quote the right post? i picked the best job i could think of off the top of my head. Its obviously dominated by males. many of whom got the job from their fathers. I truely believe that the glass cieling does exist, that many people are only where they are because of who they know and that women in the workplace, equally good candidates, will have a harder time advancing. the existence of candidates is shaped largely by our school institutions.
OK. You obviously believe that men are being systematically favored in the workplace. That is your theory. Don't act like it's the truth, until you can prove it. I'm saying this not to you specifically, but to feminists in general. You have to prove your theories using proper scientific method, before we start accepting them as the truth. The problem is that most governments doesn't think like me, and they have embraced certain feminist theories despite the fact that they hold no scientific backing. This is a travesty imo.
Also, if a CEO hands over his "job" to his son, then why do you assume that he wasn't the best for the job? And why do you claim that only women were victims? What about all the other men who were also interested? Not all of us have fathers who are CEO's, and what prevents them from giving the job to their daughters? Nothing. Do you honestly think that these CEO's hate women so much that they don't even respect their own daughters? I don't think so. I think the logical conclusion is that in most cases, one of the sons was the most suitable candidate, because he was the most willing.
If you personally don't want a enforced 50/50 gender distribution of jobs, and don't want affirmative action then we're on the same page. I'm mainly against feminism because I think that affirmative action and similar concepts are undemocratic, hinders freedom and creates inequality.
I definately think that ppl are unjustly disfavoured on the workplace in many ways, but this happens on a case to case basis, and that's why I think it's irrelevant to focus on gender. It doesn't matter if one gender gets treated worse on average. Ensuring that the justice system works as it's supposed to is how we reach equality.
your going to have to stop guessing what im saying cause you are 0-2. i brought up the fact that if a woman wants to get a surgery on her own body, its hard to get one, and thats not fair. iuno why you think im somehow against men and not women that oppress women.
So now abortion is a surgery? If it was simply a surgery, then noone would oppose it. The reason why some ppl oppose abortion is because they think that a 2 week fetus is a human life. It has nothing to do with female oppression, and everything to do with them wanting to save a human life.
pretty sure men being called womanly is a more common insult and is not an insult on their ability to pass DNA. things like "girly drinks" and "what are you a girl" in young schools don't really happen the other way and obviously imply that being a girl would be worse.
You don't know what ppl mean when they say those things. You make it seem like it's an insult aimed at women, when it's not. The purpose of those insults are to illegitimize a guys manlyhood. If you don't understand this, then whatever. Don't put words in other ppl's mouths. You can't call ppl crooked just because you misunderstand their words and then get offended.
because how often people are scumbags to female rape victims is disguising and deserves to be brought up. because these scumbags exist because of the society they grew up in that made them that way. I mean you can pick to just talk about western society if you want but then you should have quoted someone else not me. it offends you that i said women all over the world are suffering? i obviously care about both so .... glad i don't sicken you?
When we're talking about western feminism, and whether it's necessary, it doesn't matter what happens outside of the western world. So why do you keep bringing up examples like this:
its still not criminal to rape your wife in india.
This is just a cheap way for you to win sympathy points. "Join our cause, because we fight for the poor women in India." That's what you're saying, and you saying that is so misleading that it offends me. I don't think you care about them, because if you did, you wouldn't try to highlight their situation just to win sympathy points. As I said, we're discussing western feminism, so any situation outside of the western world belongs to another debate, a debate where I would be on the same side as feminists.
and the reaction of every teammate i had to every girl on any team in house league hockey for 15 years.
This is not female oppression. Why is it oppression to say that they suck, or that you find their games not to be interesting? What if they objectively suck as hockey players compared to you, and what if you find their games to be uninteresting? Aren't you allowed to speak the truth? Saying these things doesn't mean that you don't support women's hockey, it just means that you aren't interested in it. I mean, would you take the games of your friends 14 year old little brother seriously? No, because the games are just not interesting enough, and if I had a friend who was bugging me about some game that his 14 year old brother played, then I would probably respond with "lolkidshockey". And if he bugged me about his gf's hockey game, I would say "lolwomenshockey". It's the same thing, really. I like the sport, but I have standards, when it comes to entertainment value.
With that said, I'm a huge biathlon fan and I like women's biathlon as much as men's biathlon. The reason why I approach this sport differently to hockey is because in this sport, the difference between the gender doesn't really hinder the entertainment value. It's a endurance sport, so the speed advantage of the men isn't really a factor. When both men and women can provide the same excitement, gender becomes irrelevant in sports. This is why certain women's sports, especially endurance and solo sports are better off than team sports, where the difference in physical capacity is more noticeable.
On February 26 2014 03:56 ComaDose wrote:Uh yeah, male oppression exists in my vocabulary why are you pretending to know my vocabulary. why are you talking about 50/50 you just picked a bunch of stuff out of thin air i didn't assume anything about what anyone wants? did you quote the right post? i picked the best job i could think of off the top of my head. Its obviously dominated by males. many of whom got the job from their fathers. I truely believe that the glass cieling does exist, that many people are only where they are because of who they know and that women in the workplace, equally good candidates, will have a harder time advancing. the existence of candidates is shaped largely by our school institutions.
OK. You obviously believe that men are being systematically favored in the workplace. That is your theory. Don't act like it's the truth, until you can prove it. I'm saying this not to you specifically, but to feminists in general. You have to prove your theories using proper scientific method, before we start accepting them as the truth. The problem is that most governments doesn't think like me, and they have embraced certain feminist theories despite the fact that they hold no scientific backing. This is a travesty imo.
Also, if a CEO hands over his "job" to his son, then why do you assume that he wasn't the best for the job? And why do you claim that only women were victims? What about all the other men who were also interested? Not all of us have fathers who are CEO's, and what prevents them from giving the job to their daughters? Nothing. Do you honestly think that these CEO's hate women so much that they don't even respect their own daughters? I don't think so. I think the logical conclusion is that in most cases, one of the sons was the most suitable candidate, because he was the most willing.
If you personally don't want a enforced 50/50 gender distribution of jobs, and don't want affirmative action then we're on the same page. I'm mainly against feminism because I think that affirmative action and similar concepts are undemocratic, hinders freedom and creates inequality.
I definately think that ppl are unjustly disfavoured on the workplace in many ways, but this happens on a case to case basis, and that's why I think it's irrelevant to focus on gender. It doesn't matter if one gender gets treated worse on average. Ensuring that the justice system works as it's supposed to is how we reach equality.
yup thats what i believe. seems pretty obvious to me. pretty common theme in literature and other media. lots of other people have observed this trend. I don't care about your political views. It does matter if one gender gets treated worse on average cause thats called sexism and thats bad.
your going to have to stop guessing what im saying cause you are 0-2. i brought up the fact that if a woman wants to get a surgery on her own body, its hard to get one, and thats not fair. iuno why you think im somehow against men and not women that oppress women.
So now abortion is a surgery? If it was simply a surgery, then noone would oppose it. The reason why some ppl oppose abortion is because they think that a 2 week fetus is a human life. It has nothing to do with female oppression, and everything to do with them wanting to save a human life.
I believe women have a right to a choice. you don't?
pretty sure men being called womanly is a more common insult and is not an insult on their ability to pass DNA. things like "girly drinks" and "what are you a girl" in young schools don't really happen the other way and obviously imply that being a girl would be worse.
You don't know what ppl mean when they say those things. You make it seem like it's an insult aimed at women, when it's not. The purpose of those insults are to illegitimize a guys manlyhood. If you don't understand this, then whatever. Don't put words in other ppl's mouths. You can't call ppl crooked just because you misunderstand their words and then get offended.
no its an insult aimed at them. woman = insult. not cool.
because how often people are scumbags to female rape victims is disguising and deserves to be brought up. because these scumbags exist because of the society they grew up in that made them that way. I mean you can pick to just talk about western society if you want but then you should have quoted someone else not me. it offends you that i said women all over the world are suffering? i obviously care about both so .... glad i don't sicken you?
When we're talking about western feminism, and whether it's necessary, it doesn't matter what happens outside of the western world. So why do you keep bringing up examples like this:
we're? you quoted me you can't dictate what im talking about.
its still not criminal to rape your wife in india.
This is just a cheap way for you to win sympathy points. "Join our cause, because we fight for the poor women in India." That's what you're saying, and you saying that is so misleading that it offends me. I don't think you care about them, because if you did, you wouldn't try to highlight their situation just to win sympathy points. As I said, we're discussing western feminism, so any situation outside of the western world belongs to another debate, a debate where I would be on the same side as feminists.
and the reaction of every teammate i had to every girl on any team in house league hockey for 15 years.
This is not female oppression. Why is it oppression to say that they suck, or that you find their games not to be interesting? What if they objectively suck as hockey players compared to you, and what if you find their games to be uninteresting? Aren't you allowed to speak the truth? Saying these things doesn't mean that you don't support women's hockey, it just means that you aren't interested in it. I mean, would you take the games of your friends 14 year old little brother seriously? No, because the games are just not interesting enough, and if I had a friend who was bugging me about some game that his 14 year old brother played, then I would probably respond with "lolkidshockey". And if he bugged me about his gf's hockey game, I would say "lolwomenshockey". It's the same thing, really. I like the sport, but I have standards, when it comes to entertainment value.
With that said, I'm a huge biathlon fan and I like women's biathlon as much as men's biathlon. The reason why I approach this sport differently to hockey is because in this sport, the difference between the gender doesn't really hinder the entertainment value. It's a endurance sport, so the speed advantage of the men isn't really a factor. When both men and women can provide the same excitement, gender becomes irrelevant in sports. This is why certain women's sports, especially endurance and solo sports are better off than team sports, where the difference in physical capacity is more noticeable.
no my teammates said really sexual inappropriate things that had nothing to do with skill level.
pls stop guessing what i mean and setting up your own net to slam dunk on the other side of the room.
Feminism is the belief that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men.
emphasized your black hole.
My black hole? Seems like another xM(Z gem is coming - do elaborate.
there is nothing to elaborate. you can just stick any argument, logic, idea, credo in there, and it goes puff, it gets sucked in. and i'm left strawmanning myself ...
ok, ComaDose, I have said all I wanted to say, and I don't see a debate with you leading anywhere, so whatever. But I want you to silently ask yourself this question: What gives you the right to decide how to interpret the full meaning of a persons words when they insult someone? My point is that you can see potential malice intended at a certain group in almost everything, but that doesn't mean that it was intended.
On February 26 2014 08:39 L1ghtning wrote: ok, ComaDose, I have said all I wanted to say, and I don't see a debate with you leading anywhere, so whatever. But I want you to silently ask yourself this question: What gives you the right to decide how to interpret the full meaning of a persons words when they insult someone? My point is that you can see potential malice intended at a certain group in almost everything, but that doesn't mean that it was intended.
Yeah, fucking people complaining about the word nigger. The white man should decide if it's offensive or not.
On March 24 2014 15:33 Jumperer wrote: The best video I've seen destroying fat acceptance and modern feminism
What a lame, hateful video. It doesn't destroy anything, just shows that the guy in the video is unable or unwilling to see things from someone elses viewpoint.
On March 30 2014 18:42 xM(Z wrote: we're talking about the fat acceptance movement which is advocated by some feminists.
Sorry, you think fat acceptance people want other people to pay for them to be skinny? I don't think you have a working knowledge of what the words you're using mean.
EPT
