EPTInteresting series of documentaries about feminism - Page 23
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43959 Posts
On March 31 2014 04:49 xM(Z wrote: why do you keep trying?. it is in the video: they want liposuction to be covered by basic medical/health insurance which we, all taxpayers, need to pay. And you think they want this because they're pro being fat? Does any part of "fat acceptance people want gov help being less fat" make sense in your head? Or is it possible you have taken a random youtube video at face value and left your critical thinking skills at home. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
but, if you ask me, i'd say they want to get the fat out so they could stick more fat right back in. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43959 Posts
It's a youtube video some guy made and because it vaguely conformed to some preconceived notions of yours you went "sounds legit" without applying even the slightest bit of thought to what it was claiming. And now I'm calling you out on how obviously nonsensical it is you're passing the buck off to a vague other with no explanation for why you took it at face value in the first place. | ||
|
levelping
Singapore759 Posts
On March 31 2014 08:50 xM(Z wrote: you are just strawmanning and misinterpret what i never said. ask them what's in their heads, how would i know?. those are their words/demands/needs/whatever. but, if you ask me, i'd say they want to get the fat out so they could stick more fat right back in. "if you ask me, my assumption is that these fat people have the most nefarious and maliciously lazy motive possible" It's a bit difficult to take seriously your complaint of other people straw manning when you're doing just that on an atrocious level. Heck attitudes like yours are why fat acceptance is needed. Being fat is not good but it isn't a free pass to assume the worst about people either. Have you not considered that some people are just so genetically disposed to being fat that liposuction is the only recourse? | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
However as time went on, his father became sicker and sicker w/ series of heart faillures until one day he finally hit the coffin w/ an artery blockage. I went to his funeral. But as sad as it was, there was an upside to that event. My friend quickly changed his mindset after several months of grief. He first started by changing his diet. What he did was that he would make his own vegetable soup every single night. Admitedly, they were rather weird tasting w/ combo of tomatoes, celery, lettuce, onions, and garlic. Yes, he even made me drink it. And as time went on, his eyes have became more and more focused which I'm guessing is from high caliber of USEFUL nutrients induced to his body that one day he started jogging to high school and flashforward 3 years later, he played as a Linebacker on the school's football team. I think that we could all draw up a lesson from a such inspirational story that "You can change your 'destiny'." Humans have been adopting to environment since the dawn of time. And fuck the food industry for injecting highly addictive substance into low nutrient and high fat product, lowering these prices so that people would rather choose fast foods than real food. But in the end, assuming that you aren't born w/ a birth defect and have all functional limbs, will power is everything. On topic: The more beauty a woman have, the less they talk about feminism because they can simply have men chasing after her. The uglier a woman is, they more likely they are into accepting the notion of having a female dominated society. It only makes sense. And truthfully speaking, just look at Lindy West (who many considered as one of the key leaders in the feminism movement), google her picture at your own risk. Majority of Victoria's Secret models are actually all either engaged, married, or in a happy long term relationship with another man. They are too busy being happy w/ themselves than to find execuses that "patriarchy" is pushing them down. | ||
|
levelping
Singapore759 Posts
Your.second point is even more confused. Feminists argue that society's conception of.beauty is.determined by patriarchal forces since society is male dominated. So of course females that are sidelined by this male view of.beauty are the.ones most likely to.complain! And of course Victoria secret models with exemplify the male gaze aren't. Your comment does not engage the feminist argument but instead highlights the problem with feminists feel is wrong. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On March 31 2014 13:36 Xiphos wrote: On topic: The more beauty a woman have, the less they talk about feminism because they can simply have men chasing after her. The uglier a woman is, they more likely they are into accepting the notion of having a female dominated society. It only makes sense. And truthfully speaking, just look at Lindy West (who many considered as one of the key leaders in the feminism movement), google her picture at your own risk. Majority of Victoria's Secret models are actually all either engaged, married, or in a happy long term relationship with another man. They are too busy being happy w/ themselves than to find execuses that "patriarchy" is pushing them down. Damn, you do not know anything about feminism, do you? | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On March 31 2014 13:08 levelping wrote: "if you ask me, my assumption is that these fat people have the most nefarious and maliciously lazy motive possible" It's a bit difficult to take seriously your complaint of other people straw manning when you're doing just that on an atrocious level. Heck attitudes like yours are why fat acceptance is needed. Being fat is not good but it isn't a free pass to assume the worst about people either. Have you not considered that some people are just so genetically disposed to being fat that liposuction is the only recourse? I have never understood this argument. While weight loss is certainly different for everyone, it is flat out impossible to be genetically fat, as unable to lose weight. If that was the case, there would be people who do not need to eat which obviously isn't the case. If your gotten yourself really really fat you can still lose weight. Gonna be painful and harder than to other people, but it is certainly doable. Just get fucking help like a drug addict would, high sugary foods can be as addictive as drugs but lose weight is ALWAYS doable. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On March 31 2014 09:05 KwarK wrote: Ask who? In which country have these people made the taxpayers pay for their liposuction because they're in favour of being fat? Where has this happened? Who are these feminists? It's a youtube video some guy made and because it vaguely conformed to some preconceived notions of yours you went "sounds legit" without applying even the slightest bit of thought to what it was claiming. And now I'm calling you out on how obviously nonsensical it is you're passing the buck off to a vague other with no explanation for why you took it at face value in the first place. so if i find a random feminist demanding free lipo will you get of my back?. (since i believe a already implied that free lipo is not on the agenda (if they ever had one) of mainstream feminism)). @levelping - the whole Kwark mess was gossipy and on the speculative fringe of possibility. his stance is that if it's not there yet, i should just shut up. i don't agree with that and speculate about a possibility, based only on the fact that some feminists have had a history of weird (to say the least) demands. also, being genetically predisposed (even if such a thing would exist), can not make you fat; food does however. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
| ||
|
crazyweasel
607 Posts
let's face it feminism isnt about ugly women's jealousy(you make it sound like it) over beautiful women who inevitably will succeed. men' domination transcend class, good looking or not. Money is what dont make you encline to feminism since its other women who deal with "women sphere" (homecaring, childcare, etc.) for you. you'll have a maid, a nany etc who will do everything for you. but since you're married to a richman he's still the provider so anything you can say against his domination will be turned away because he will always be the one you depend on. that is how gender transcend class. it doesnt take much studies to realise that women weren't on equal level with men and that there was an ideology supporting it. + Show Spoiler + also i wouldnt argue with kwark if i were you. he's the kind to call you out personally (like saying you left your brain home) and when you respond bans you for flaming | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On March 31 2014 13:36 Xiphos wrote: The more beauty a woman have, the less they talk about feminism because they can simply have men chasing after her. The uglier a woman is, they more likely they are into accepting the notion of having a female dominated society. It only makes sense. And truthfully speaking, just look at Lindy West (who many considered as one of the key leaders in the feminism movement), google her picture at your own risk. Majority of Victoria's Secret models are actually all either engaged, married, or in a happy long term relationship with another man. They are too busy being happy w/ themselves than to find execuses that "patriarchy" is pushing them down. Because men are shallow and objectify women and a woman's success is measured by her ability to attract men as mates, feminists are ugly women trying to rule the world. I know this cause there is an ugly feminist and some hot people that are married. There are just too many things wrong with this. | ||
|
NotJumperer
United States1371 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43959 Posts
On April 01 2014 09:57 Jumperer wrote: Way to miss the entire point completely. Obese people obviously increase the cost of healthcare for everyone because obesity increase risks of many other deadly diseases. more diseases = more trips to hospital. It doesn't matter if they want or don't want us to pay for liposuction. Obesity rate is as highest its ever been in America and this whole "accept us for the way we are" bullshit isn't going to help. WE ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR IT. Where's your critical thinking skill at? This is an easy dot to connect. If you're going with "fat people make choices which aren't in favour of the overall greater good of society and therefore we should shame them for it" argument then you're going to have to add them to the bottom of a very long list of other people doing the same. I mean really, how much do you think going to the gym daily really contributes? It's a colossal waste of labour which could be better spent saving for retirement, volunteering, spending time being a better parent or member of the community or learning. Do you think living longer really helps society anyway? It doesn't, it helps yourself, it's selfish. Society benefits if you work your 40 years, die without claiming a pension and your job/accumulated capital/house etc return to circulation for the benefit of the younger generation. Every single choice has an opportunity cost, when you work on getting a six pack you're choosing not to learn Mandarin, how fucking self absorbed must you be to choose looking better with your shirt off over the ability to communicate with a billion unique people. But we don't shame for these things because we recognise that other people's shitty decisions are their own. America has a problem with obesity, it also has a problem with profligate consumerism, patriotism, racism, anti-intellectualism, "American exceptionalism" and a bunch of other messed up social ills. The idea that you might accept all of the problems within your society as "just being 'murcan" but draw the line when someone eats recreationally and asks you to accept that is utter madness. Shaming fat people is intellectually dishonest and it's a double standard. Shame broadly or accept the choices of others, picking on the fat is just a playground bully mentality. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On April 01 2014 09:57 Jumperer wrote: "there are just too many things wrong with this" and then says nothing to back up his statement. Well they seem so obvious I didn't know I would have to list these things for you but okay; men are not all shallow and objectify women, a women's success is not measured by her ability to attract men as mates, feminism isn't about a female dominated society, there are plenty of attractive feminists, being chased by men does not occupy all of attractive women's time and doesn't prevent them from criticizing society. Not to mention that saying "beautiful celebrities aren't complaining so there must be no problem" is just a spotty argument. "It only makes sense". Of course being attractive gives advantages in society but that's a different topic completely. I don't think fat acceptance should be lumped with feminism either. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On April 01 2014 09:57 Jumperer wrote: In other news, wage gap is bullshit. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/01/no-women-don-t-make-less-money-than-men.html Just... no. First of all, the article itself acknowledges that even when you take into account "differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week" between men and women, there is still an unexplained wage gap of 5 cents (actually, it's between 5 and 7 cents, and that's an average - some professions see higher wage gaps even with all of these factors taken into account). But that's not the point. Even if taking these factors into account reduced the wage gap to 0 all other things being equal, the fact is that overall, there is still a 23 cents wage gap between men and women. That women statistically tend to occupy jobs which pay less, are less stable and more part-time is not due to a biological difference between men and women - it's due to cultural factors and the perpetuation of gender roles which get integrated at a very young age. The article casually dismisses those explanations which have been well documented by social sciences, and replies that we should "respect the choices" of women, and that it is "demeaning" to question these choices. Yet nobody is telling individual women that they should not make the choices they're making - the point is that the tendencies we observe at a structural and collective level are not explained by individual choices taken separately: they're largely explained by the cultural factors I just mentioned. So, to sum up, there very much is a wage gap, and it needs to be addressed. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On April 02 2014 08:25 kwizach wrote: Just... no. First of all, the article itself acknowledges that even when you take into account "differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week" between men and women, there is still an unexplained wage gap of 5 cents (actually, it's between 5 and 7 cents, and that's an average - some professions see higher wage gaps even with all of these factors taken into account). But that's not the point. Even if taking these factors into account reduced the wage gap to 0 all other things being equal, the fact is that overall, there is still a 23 cents wage gap between men and women. That women statistically tend to occupy jobs which pay less, are less stable and more part-time is not due to a biological difference between men and women - it's due to cultural factors and the perpetuation of gender roles which get integrated at a very young age. The article casually dismisses those explanations which have been well documented by social sciences, and replies that we should "respect the choices" of women, and that it is "demeaning" to question these choices. Yet nobody is telling individual women that they should not make the choices they're making - the point is that the tendencies we observe at a structural and collective level are not explained by individual choices taken separately: they're largely explained by the cultural factors I just mentioned. So, to sum up, there very much is a wage gap, and it needs to be addressed. So you are saying you can affirm with 100% certainty that the wage up is due to cultural differences and there is no chance that woman and men make different decisions in terms of studies/career choices because there are biological differences? | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On April 02 2014 09:35 GoTuNk! wrote: So you are saying you can affirm with 100% certainty that the wage up is due to cultural differences and there is no chance that woman and men make different decisions in terms of studies/career choices because there are biological differences? As I wrote earlier in the topic, the decades of scientific research done on the matter do NOT establish the existence of such a biological determinism. If you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture initial differences. Beyond this, biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women. | ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
After that, arguing that there should be more equality in career choices becomes a worthy endeavor. Because let's face it, caring/artistic jobs will always pay less than engineering/finance etc. And it doesn't pay less because it's a job with a majority of women, it pays less because it's mostly non-profit (or low profit) jobs. So the solution to make things equal would be to have a 50% split in both category, men doing more caring jobs and women more "scientific" jobs. Then you have the whole question of family/children, where there is clearly not an equality on how much time a man spend at home compared to a woman (on average). There would also be a need for a change there to be at equality, having men being more okay to spend time at home or working part time. | ||
| ||
