|
On May 02 2013 22:06 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 21:48 McBengt wrote:On May 02 2013 21:37 gedatsu wrote:On May 02 2013 21:26 McBengt wrote:On May 02 2013 21:19 gedatsu wrote:On May 02 2013 21:07 McBengt wrote:On May 02 2013 21:03 Kreb wrote:On May 02 2013 20:51 McBengt wrote:
Feminism is one of the most misunderstood and vilified terms in modern politics. I know several people who would never call themselves feminists because the term is so loaded and toxic, but when you actually ask them about core feminist issues like equal pay, right to choose, anti-discrimination laws, protection from sexual harassment in the workplace/school etc, they are all aboard.
The challenge generally is not to make people agree with (most)feminist agendas, instead it's getting them to understand that fighting for them is what actually constitutes feminism in the first place. The women, and men, who fought for the right to vote, the right to control their own bodies, the right to participate in government and positions of power, they were all feminists by definition. Yet few people recognise or even comprehend this, they see it as an excuse for angry shrews to bitch and moan.
Whenever I'm asked about this I always say; "yes I am a feminist, and so are you, even if you don't know it." While I somewhat agree with what you say, whats the difference between "feminism" and "equality" (between sexes) then? The word feminism is kinda missleading in that case, since it quite clearly indicates its about something related to..... females. Nothing. Feminism is the struggle for equality between the sexes, that is its actual definition. The two are interchangable, the reason it was called feminism was simply because females have historically been oppressed and disenfranchised. That is not its actual definition, and feminism is not *the* struggle for equality between the sexes. The definition of feminism is more complicated than that (first of all it requires that you subscribe to patriarchy theory), and there are other struggles for equality between the sexes. See for example MRA. There is a huge difference between feminism (an ideology) and equality (which is the alleged goal of said ideology). To try to equalize feminism with either equality or "the" struggle for equality, is nothing but an attempt to silence differing opinions ("you think X so you must be a feminist, but you also said Y which is not feminist so you have to stop saying Y"). Furthermore, people can have different opinions about what equality truly means. Bob defines equality as when all men go to work and all women stay at home to cook and clean, but both these jobs are equally valued. You wouldn't call Bob a feminist, would you? It's the same error as, say, labeling libertarianism as "the" struggle for freedom. Freedom is the goal of libertarianism, but it's not the only ideology that aims for freedom and different people have different ideas of what freedom really is. So no. Stop telling lies about feminism. It does not do your movement any good anyway. I never suggested it was the only struggle, or that it would confine anyone to a specific set of values. It's a malleable concept, more a general idea than a laundry list of issues. I'm not really sure how anyone could not recognize at least parts of the patriarchy, it has some fairly extensive historic backing. As for Bob, I'd probably call him an asshole. Yes you did. Right here: Nothing. Feminism is the struggle for equality between the sexes, that is its actual definition. Patriarchy theory states, in general terms, that society benefits men at the expense of women. In my opinion the reverse is closer to the truth: if society can be said to have a purpose, it is to protect and serve women. Usually at men's expense. If you look at the groups in society with the lowest standing, they are all male. We think to ourselves that it is their own faults for ending up there, but if a woman were to end up there with them, we look for a culprit. When girls do poorly in school, we blame the school system, but when boys do poorly in school we blame the boys. Ironically, the reason that feminism sees such success is also the very thing that feminism tries to fight. Because at its core it is still a bunch of women complaining about stuff, and society doing what it has always done: rising to fix their problem. It is a very sexist behavior, but it is one that benefits women. Oh, ok, you're one of those. I am sorry that you have this strange persecution complex and that you labour under the massive misapprehension that society does not generally favour males. Your claims are a tad bit ridiculous, but I am glad you agree with yourself. Good job ignoring the issues I brought up. If you try hard enough, maybe you can will them out of existence. I see that you are from Sweden. Here are some fun facts about feminism and equality in Sweden: 1) women had the right to vote before men did, 1921 vs 1923. 2) when the male-only military draft was ended in 2010, only the feminist parties were in opposition. 3) women earn about 85% of what men do (not because of discrimination, but because of working less and in different jobs). However, due to high taxes and welfare payouts, women more than make up for the difference in a lifetime. 4) it is illegal to mutilate a baby girl's genitals, but perfectly ok to mutilate a baby boy's. 5) a woman gets two different ways out of an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of what the father feels. A man gets none, unless the woman agrees with him. 6) girls receive better grades simply for being girls. When the examiner does not know the gender of the examinee, girls do not get this bonus. 7) women receive lighter sentences by the judicial system, when committing the same crime.
Actual points, good.
1. Incorrect. Both sexes were grant suffrage under the law in 1919.
2. Feminist parties? the vote was 153 in favour, 150 opposed. I doubt the one feminist party we have, which is not even in the parliament, could muster those votes.
3. Women make less than men on average, for the same work, it's been shown in multiple independent studies. The difference is less drastic than in many other countries, which is good.
4. I am vehemently opposed to circumcision in all forms, and would like to see it made illegal.
5. The right to choose is a basic part of the empowerment of women. I agree that some protection for men who do not wish to be fathers would be good.
6. Untrue, girls in general just perform better in swedish schools. I speak from both personal experience and from studying several surveys on the topic.
7. This is true, and an affront. I would like to see full equality practiced by the judicial system as well.
Now why don't you tell me some of the benefits I enjoy simply for being a man.
Better pay, more likely to get hired, a higher tolerance for eccentricity and generally deviant behaviour from society, to name a few.
|
On May 02 2013 22:17 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:04 Kotreb wrote:
@ zatic: i'm wondering why isn't it called egalitarianism, which denotes equality in its basic meaning? Maybe i'm misinformed but from what i've read feminism is about women equality (sure, you can say it's gender quality) but then what about racism, minorities etc? They should also be equal but it has nothing to do with the gender when it comes to those problems.
btw, i wrote "of only one group", not "only for one group", changes the meaning completely. Egalitarianism is not specific to gender issues. Feminism is about gender equality, specifically. Again, there is no such thing as "women equality", there is just equality between men and women = gender equality. Racism, minorities, etc are different topics from gender equality, that is why they are not included in the term.
Feminism in its history was really close to marxism at some point, with an analogy between the worker in the workplace and the woman in the familly (the two being dominated / alineated, etc.).
There is a kind of feminism called black feminism that consider that most feminist is based around white women, and that feminism should be linked to the race, etc.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but what Kotreb is pointing out is heavily discussed in feminism : can you really only talk about gender ? Does inequalities do system (like some sociologue think they do, Pfefferkorn & Bihr to begin with) ? etc.
On May 02 2013 22:21 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:17 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 22:04 Kotreb wrote:
@ zatic: i'm wondering why isn't it called egalitarianism, which denotes equality in its basic meaning? Maybe i'm misinformed but from what i've read feminism is about women equality (sure, you can say it's gender quality) but then what about racism, minorities etc? They should also be equal but it has nothing to do with the gender when it comes to those problems.
btw, i wrote "of only one group", not "only for one group", changes the meaning completely. Egalitarianism is not specific to gender issues. Feminism is about gender equality, specifically. Again, there is no such thing as "women equality", there is just equality between men and women = gender equality. Racism, minorities, etc are different topics from gender equality, that is why they are not included in the term. Feminism is about women. It sometimes tips the balance in certain areas towards equality, but its main goal is to improve the conditions of women. This is different than a gender equality perspective, which is neutral.
This is not true. First you must understand that "feminism" is a word that is used to described a huge numbers of conceptions, and a lot of feminist don't think that EVERY women are strictly more dominated than men, but that the male domination is the rule in our society. This means that, as a rule, it dictate everything : the male domination dominate womens and mens. In this regard, feminists are fighting for equality and freedom in regard to the male domination, and not only to improve women situation in regard to male.
One must not mix the feminism in the common sense and what feminist actually fought for. Feminism in its true sense is really complicated and diverse.
|
On May 02 2013 22:21 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:17 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 22:04 Kotreb wrote:
@ zatic: i'm wondering why isn't it called egalitarianism, which denotes equality in its basic meaning? Maybe i'm misinformed but from what i've read feminism is about women equality (sure, you can say it's gender quality) but then what about racism, minorities etc? They should also be equal but it has nothing to do with the gender when it comes to those problems.
btw, i wrote "of only one group", not "only for one group", changes the meaning completely. Egalitarianism is not specific to gender issues. Feminism is about gender equality, specifically. Again, there is no such thing as "women equality", there is just equality between men and women = gender equality. Racism, minorities, etc are different topics from gender equality, that is why they are not included in the term. Feminism is about women. It sometimes tips the balance in certain areas towards equality, but its main goal is to improve the conditions of women. This is different than a gender equality perspective, which is neutral.
They've actually done such a good job of it that they've tipped the balance in their favour, while keeping a large majority of the population (especially male, funnily enough most western women don't give a flying fig about feminism, but they'll parrot the party line if you question them) under the impression that more people still need to pitch in to help them out.
|
On May 02 2013 22:17 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:04 Kotreb wrote:
@ zatic: i'm wondering why isn't it called egalitarianism, which denotes equality in its basic meaning? Maybe i'm misinformed but from what i've read feminism is about women equality (sure, you can say it's gender quality) but then what about racism, minorities etc? They should also be equal but it has nothing to do with the gender when it comes to those problems.
btw, i wrote "of only one group", not "only for one group", changes the meaning completely. Egalitarianism is not specific to gender issues. Feminism is about gender equality, specifically. Again, there is no such thing as "women equality", there is just equality between men and women = gender equality. Racism, minorities, etc are different topics from gender equality, that is why they are not included in the term.
That is my point. If it's different topic, why do people say feminism is concerned with ALL of those things, not just with women.
|
Zurich15310 Posts
On May 02 2013 22:21 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:17 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 22:04 Kotreb wrote:
@ zatic: i'm wondering why isn't it called egalitarianism, which denotes equality in its basic meaning? Maybe i'm misinformed but from what i've read feminism is about women equality (sure, you can say it's gender quality) but then what about racism, minorities etc? They should also be equal but it has nothing to do with the gender when it comes to those problems.
btw, i wrote "of only one group", not "only for one group", changes the meaning completely. Egalitarianism is not specific to gender issues. Feminism is about gender equality, specifically. Again, there is no such thing as "women equality", there is just equality between men and women = gender equality. Racism, minorities, etc are different topics from gender equality, that is why they are not included in the term. Feminism is about women. It sometimes tips the balance in certain areas towards equality, but its main goal is to improve the conditions of women. This is different than a gender equality perspective, which is neutral.
No it is not just about women.
Yes, it mostly aims at improving conditions for women. This only makes sense. Why should we worsen conditions for men in order to achieve equality? So that everyone is equally bad off? No, of course, where possible it is always preferable to improve the disadvantaged side of the equality scale instead of the other way around.
|
On May 02 2013 22:23 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:06 gedatsu wrote:On May 02 2013 21:48 McBengt wrote:On May 02 2013 21:37 gedatsu wrote:On May 02 2013 21:26 McBengt wrote:On May 02 2013 21:19 gedatsu wrote:On May 02 2013 21:07 McBengt wrote:On May 02 2013 21:03 Kreb wrote:On May 02 2013 20:51 McBengt wrote:
Feminism is one of the most misunderstood and vilified terms in modern politics. I know several people who would never call themselves feminists because the term is so loaded and toxic, but when you actually ask them about core feminist issues like equal pay, right to choose, anti-discrimination laws, protection from sexual harassment in the workplace/school etc, they are all aboard.
The challenge generally is not to make people agree with (most)feminist agendas, instead it's getting them to understand that fighting for them is what actually constitutes feminism in the first place. The women, and men, who fought for the right to vote, the right to control their own bodies, the right to participate in government and positions of power, they were all feminists by definition. Yet few people recognise or even comprehend this, they see it as an excuse for angry shrews to bitch and moan.
Whenever I'm asked about this I always say; "yes I am a feminist, and so are you, even if you don't know it." While I somewhat agree with what you say, whats the difference between "feminism" and "equality" (between sexes) then? The word feminism is kinda missleading in that case, since it quite clearly indicates its about something related to..... females. Nothing. Feminism is the struggle for equality between the sexes, that is its actual definition. The two are interchangable, the reason it was called feminism was simply because females have historically been oppressed and disenfranchised. That is not its actual definition, and feminism is not *the* struggle for equality between the sexes. The definition of feminism is more complicated than that (first of all it requires that you subscribe to patriarchy theory), and there are other struggles for equality between the sexes. See for example MRA. There is a huge difference between feminism (an ideology) and equality (which is the alleged goal of said ideology). To try to equalize feminism with either equality or "the" struggle for equality, is nothing but an attempt to silence differing opinions ("you think X so you must be a feminist, but you also said Y which is not feminist so you have to stop saying Y"). Furthermore, people can have different opinions about what equality truly means. Bob defines equality as when all men go to work and all women stay at home to cook and clean, but both these jobs are equally valued. You wouldn't call Bob a feminist, would you? It's the same error as, say, labeling libertarianism as "the" struggle for freedom. Freedom is the goal of libertarianism, but it's not the only ideology that aims for freedom and different people have different ideas of what freedom really is. So no. Stop telling lies about feminism. It does not do your movement any good anyway. I never suggested it was the only struggle, or that it would confine anyone to a specific set of values. It's a malleable concept, more a general idea than a laundry list of issues. I'm not really sure how anyone could not recognize at least parts of the patriarchy, it has some fairly extensive historic backing. As for Bob, I'd probably call him an asshole. Yes you did. Right here: Nothing. Feminism is the struggle for equality between the sexes, that is its actual definition. Patriarchy theory states, in general terms, that society benefits men at the expense of women. In my opinion the reverse is closer to the truth: if society can be said to have a purpose, it is to protect and serve women. Usually at men's expense. If you look at the groups in society with the lowest standing, they are all male. We think to ourselves that it is their own faults for ending up there, but if a woman were to end up there with them, we look for a culprit. When girls do poorly in school, we blame the school system, but when boys do poorly in school we blame the boys. Ironically, the reason that feminism sees such success is also the very thing that feminism tries to fight. Because at its core it is still a bunch of women complaining about stuff, and society doing what it has always done: rising to fix their problem. It is a very sexist behavior, but it is one that benefits women. Oh, ok, you're one of those. I am sorry that you have this strange persecution complex and that you labour under the massive misapprehension that society does not generally favour males. Your claims are a tad bit ridiculous, but I am glad you agree with yourself. Good job ignoring the issues I brought up. If you try hard enough, maybe you can will them out of existence. I see that you are from Sweden. Here are some fun facts about feminism and equality in Sweden: 1) women had the right to vote before men did, 1921 vs 1923. 2) when the male-only military draft was ended in 2010, only the feminist parties were in opposition. 3) women earn about 85% of what men do (not because of discrimination, but because of working less and in different jobs). However, due to high taxes and welfare payouts, women more than make up for the difference in a lifetime. 4) it is illegal to mutilate a baby girl's genitals, but perfectly ok to mutilate a baby boy's. 5) a woman gets two different ways out of an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of what the father feels. A man gets none, unless the woman agrees with him. 6) girls receive better grades simply for being girls. When the examiner does not know the gender of the examinee, girls do not get this bonus. 7) women receive lighter sentences by the judicial system, when committing the same crime. Actual points, good. 1. Incorrect. Both sexes were grant suffrage under the law in 1919. 2. Feminist parties? the vote was 153 in favour, 150 opposed. I doubt the one feminist party we have, which is not even in the parliament, could muster those votes. 3. Women make less than men on average, for the same work, it's been shown in multiple independent studies. The difference is less drastic that in many other countries, which is good. 4. I am vehemently opposed to circumcision in all forms, and would like to see it made illegal. 5. The right to choose is a basic part of the empowerment of women. I agree that some protection for men who do not wish to be fathers would be good. 6. Untrue, girls in general just perform better in swedish schools. I speak from both personal experience and from studying several surveys on the topic. 7. This is true, and an affront. I would like to see full equality practiced by the judicial system as well. Show nested quote +Now why don't you tell me some of the benefits I enjoy simply for being a man. Better pay, more likely to get hired, a higher tolerance for eccentricity and generally deviant behaviour from society, to name a few.
Shit man, we need to crack down on "deviant behaviour". The men practicing "deviant behaviour" throughout history have been the ones to make some progress - e.g. basically every inventor ever (yeah, minus kevlar). Galileo, Da Vinci, hell even Jesus are the kind of guys that I'm sure could be considered "deviant" but they did more for society than all the people hatin' on them combined.
Edit:
1. cbf finding out more about sweden.
2. same as 1.
3. Even if women make less than men for the same work, where's the stats about quality of life? I'd put money that they live longer, spend less time in prison, are killed less in workplace accidents (eg. construction industry) and probably on average receive the "men-favoured" money anyway through a relationship culture that decrees men as the one to pay for dates, gifts, rings, holidays etc. etc.
4. you agree is unfair to men.
5. All for equality man, where the woman has equal right to keep or not a baby and the man has equal right to listen to the woman (and probably pay child support or something, certainly in America and Australia, not sure about Sweden)
6. Girls generally perform poorly -> patriachy is to blame. Girls generally perform better than boys -> boys to blame, feminism still making efforts to help out girls in the interests of "equality".
7. you agree is unfair to men.
|
On May 02 2013 22:27 NDDseer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:23 McBengt wrote:On May 02 2013 22:06 gedatsu wrote:On May 02 2013 21:48 McBengt wrote:On May 02 2013 21:37 gedatsu wrote:On May 02 2013 21:26 McBengt wrote:On May 02 2013 21:19 gedatsu wrote:On May 02 2013 21:07 McBengt wrote:On May 02 2013 21:03 Kreb wrote:On May 02 2013 20:51 McBengt wrote:
Feminism is one of the most misunderstood and vilified terms in modern politics. I know several people who would never call themselves feminists because the term is so loaded and toxic, but when you actually ask them about core feminist issues like equal pay, right to choose, anti-discrimination laws, protection from sexual harassment in the workplace/school etc, they are all aboard.
The challenge generally is not to make people agree with (most)feminist agendas, instead it's getting them to understand that fighting for them is what actually constitutes feminism in the first place. The women, and men, who fought for the right to vote, the right to control their own bodies, the right to participate in government and positions of power, they were all feminists by definition. Yet few people recognise or even comprehend this, they see it as an excuse for angry shrews to bitch and moan.
Whenever I'm asked about this I always say; "yes I am a feminist, and so are you, even if you don't know it." While I somewhat agree with what you say, whats the difference between "feminism" and "equality" (between sexes) then? The word feminism is kinda missleading in that case, since it quite clearly indicates its about something related to..... females. Nothing. Feminism is the struggle for equality between the sexes, that is its actual definition. The two are interchangable, the reason it was called feminism was simply because females have historically been oppressed and disenfranchised. That is not its actual definition, and feminism is not *the* struggle for equality between the sexes. The definition of feminism is more complicated than that (first of all it requires that you subscribe to patriarchy theory), and there are other struggles for equality between the sexes. See for example MRA. There is a huge difference between feminism (an ideology) and equality (which is the alleged goal of said ideology). To try to equalize feminism with either equality or "the" struggle for equality, is nothing but an attempt to silence differing opinions ("you think X so you must be a feminist, but you also said Y which is not feminist so you have to stop saying Y"). Furthermore, people can have different opinions about what equality truly means. Bob defines equality as when all men go to work and all women stay at home to cook and clean, but both these jobs are equally valued. You wouldn't call Bob a feminist, would you? It's the same error as, say, labeling libertarianism as "the" struggle for freedom. Freedom is the goal of libertarianism, but it's not the only ideology that aims for freedom and different people have different ideas of what freedom really is. So no. Stop telling lies about feminism. It does not do your movement any good anyway. I never suggested it was the only struggle, or that it would confine anyone to a specific set of values. It's a malleable concept, more a general idea than a laundry list of issues. I'm not really sure how anyone could not recognize at least parts of the patriarchy, it has some fairly extensive historic backing. As for Bob, I'd probably call him an asshole. Yes you did. Right here: Nothing. Feminism is the struggle for equality between the sexes, that is its actual definition. Patriarchy theory states, in general terms, that society benefits men at the expense of women. In my opinion the reverse is closer to the truth: if society can be said to have a purpose, it is to protect and serve women. Usually at men's expense. If you look at the groups in society with the lowest standing, they are all male. We think to ourselves that it is their own faults for ending up there, but if a woman were to end up there with them, we look for a culprit. When girls do poorly in school, we blame the school system, but when boys do poorly in school we blame the boys. Ironically, the reason that feminism sees such success is also the very thing that feminism tries to fight. Because at its core it is still a bunch of women complaining about stuff, and society doing what it has always done: rising to fix their problem. It is a very sexist behavior, but it is one that benefits women. Oh, ok, you're one of those. I am sorry that you have this strange persecution complex and that you labour under the massive misapprehension that society does not generally favour males. Your claims are a tad bit ridiculous, but I am glad you agree with yourself. Good job ignoring the issues I brought up. If you try hard enough, maybe you can will them out of existence. I see that you are from Sweden. Here are some fun facts about feminism and equality in Sweden: 1) women had the right to vote before men did, 1921 vs 1923. 2) when the male-only military draft was ended in 2010, only the feminist parties were in opposition. 3) women earn about 85% of what men do (not because of discrimination, but because of working less and in different jobs). However, due to high taxes and welfare payouts, women more than make up for the difference in a lifetime. 4) it is illegal to mutilate a baby girl's genitals, but perfectly ok to mutilate a baby boy's. 5) a woman gets two different ways out of an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of what the father feels. A man gets none, unless the woman agrees with him. 6) girls receive better grades simply for being girls. When the examiner does not know the gender of the examinee, girls do not get this bonus. 7) women receive lighter sentences by the judicial system, when committing the same crime. Actual points, good. 1. Incorrect. Both sexes were grant suffrage under the law in 1919. 2. Feminist parties? the vote was 153 in favour, 150 opposed. I doubt the one feminist party we have, which is not even in the parliament, could muster those votes. 3. Women make less than men on average, for the same work, it's been shown in multiple independent studies. The difference is less drastic that in many other countries, which is good. 4. I am vehemently opposed to circumcision in all forms, and would like to see it made illegal. 5. The right to choose is a basic part of the empowerment of women. I agree that some protection for men who do not wish to be fathers would be good. 6. Untrue, girls in general just perform better in swedish schools. I speak from both personal experience and from studying several surveys on the topic. 7. This is true, and an affront. I would like to see full equality practiced by the judicial system as well. Now why don't you tell me some of the benefits I enjoy simply for being a man. Better pay, more likely to get hired, a higher tolerance for eccentricity and generally deviant behaviour from society, to name a few. Shit man, we need to crack down on "deviant behaviour". The men practicing "deviant behaviour" throughout history have been the ones to make some progress - e.g. basically every inventor ever (yeah, minus kevlar). Galileo, Da Vinci, hell even Jesus are the kind of guys that I'm sure could be considered "deviant" but they did more for society than all the people hatin' on them combined.
You may have misunderstood, it was not meant to carry any negative connotations. I should have worded that better, apologies.
I agree that genius and deviancy are often intertwined, which was kind of the point. Society is typically more accepting of males who are outliers in terms of personality than females. If anything, I'd like to see more women with the kind of eccentric personalities as the people you mentioned.
|
On May 02 2013 19:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 19:37 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:35 Goozen wrote:On May 02 2013 19:29 Velr wrote:On May 02 2013 19:21 Goozen wrote:
The only solution is remove anonymity, nothing else will work. The bottom line is that there are 2 kinds of people who obey the law. Those that who do it because its a law, and those who fear the punishment that they will receive from breaking it. As long as this vocal minority isn't forced to receive consequences for their action, they won't change.
And lets face it, it doesn't help that a fair number of women use their sexuality as a tool to gain benefits. Then there are teenagers (the main adience of stuff like this?) which often don't give a shit if there is no imminent/direct punishment... Which there never can and will be for stuff like this. These are not even "easy" cases... I mean, where do you draw the line between harsh criticism or some "vulgar language" and ILLEGAL sexism/harrasment? You would need to have a Judge reading over all this and decide case by case... Oh... And your on the Internet, that means these "offenders" can come from any country in the world, witch basically all have diffrent laws... If she (or anyone else) can't deal with it... Then don't do it. It's not like actors or other TV-Persons have it "better", they normally just don't read immediate chat feedback. Your going out there in front of a camera, you will gate rated, insulted and objectified... Deal with it. I know, thats the problem. There is no way to stop or prevent this, the most that can happen is that moderates remove comments and ban people from youtube. But lets face it, i doubt that will happen also. Saying "if you can't deal with it, don't do it" is the wrong attitude. Using this logic the police can say "don't wear revealing/ provocative clothing if you don't want to get harassed". There is a problem, there simply isnt much we can do, but blaming her is not the correct action. I agree, blaming her is not the correct action. I personally am not blaming her for this happening, although I will blame her for being a hypocrite (see my other posts) and also for dealing with this in the completely wrong way. Ignore the trolls, get someone to ban/censor them for you, or smite them. Going public with this (as if it's a big deal, as if there aren't thousand of other YouTube and Twitch channels that deal with this shit just as much as her) and playing victim will NOT accomplish Anything AT ALL. EDIT: Or she can even realize that these trolls still contribute to her page views, video views, channel views etc and by commenting they push her videos higher up the YouTube ladder. So she's basically able to make more money thanks to this negative attention. Could probably try to exploit that instead of getting all pissy. You realise that women are trained from an early age not to cause a scene when men do things they're not comfortable. That it's just boys being boys and they should just put up with it, from leering to catcalling all the way up to harassment. That if a woman actually says "why don't you just fuck off" then suddenly she's hormonal, overreacting and a bitch. People blame women for rape when they don't fight enough or say "no" loudly enough and they call them attention seekers when they call out harassment. It's a no win situation.
Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet.
|
On May 02 2013 22:23 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:17 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 22:04 Kotreb wrote:
@ zatic: i'm wondering why isn't it called egalitarianism, which denotes equality in its basic meaning? Maybe i'm misinformed but from what i've read feminism is about women equality (sure, you can say it's gender quality) but then what about racism, minorities etc? They should also be equal but it has nothing to do with the gender when it comes to those problems.
btw, i wrote "of only one group", not "only for one group", changes the meaning completely. Egalitarianism is not specific to gender issues. Feminism is about gender equality, specifically. Again, there is no such thing as "women equality", there is just equality between men and women = gender equality. Racism, minorities, etc are different topics from gender equality, that is why they are not included in the term. Feminism in its history was really close to marxism at some point, with an analogy between the worker in the workplace and the woman in the familly (the two being dominated / alineated, etc.). There is a kind of feminism called black feminism that consider that most feminist is based around white women, and that feminism should be linked to the race, etc. I'm not saying you are wrong, but what Kotreb is pointing out is heavily discussed in feminism : can you really only talk about gender ? Does inequalities do system (like some sociologue think they do, Pfefferkorn & Bihr to begin with) ? etc. Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:21 Jormundr wrote:On May 02 2013 22:17 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 22:04 Kotreb wrote:
@ zatic: i'm wondering why isn't it called egalitarianism, which denotes equality in its basic meaning? Maybe i'm misinformed but from what i've read feminism is about women equality (sure, you can say it's gender quality) but then what about racism, minorities etc? They should also be equal but it has nothing to do with the gender when it comes to those problems.
btw, i wrote "of only one group", not "only for one group", changes the meaning completely. Egalitarianism is not specific to gender issues. Feminism is about gender equality, specifically. Again, there is no such thing as "women equality", there is just equality between men and women = gender equality. Racism, minorities, etc are different topics from gender equality, that is why they are not included in the term. Feminism is about women. It sometimes tips the balance in certain areas towards equality, but its main goal is to improve the conditions of women. This is different than a gender equality perspective, which is neutral. This is not true. First you must understand that "feminism" is a word that is used to described a huge numbers of conceptions, and a lot of feminist don't think that EVERY women are strictly more dominated than men, but that the male domination is the rule in our society. This means that, as a rule, it dictate everything : the male domination dominate womens and mens. In this regard, feminists are fighting for equality and freedom in regard to the male domination, and not only to improve women situation in regard to male. One must not mix the feminism in the common sense and what feminist actually fought for. Feminism in its true sense is really complicated and diverse.
What I said is entirely true. What you said is self-contradictory and only true if women are at a disadvantage in every possible way in society. This is not true. Therefore feminism does not equate with gender equality.
|
On May 02 2013 22:17 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:04 Kotreb wrote:
@ zatic: i'm wondering why isn't it called egalitarianism, which denotes equality in its basic meaning? Maybe i'm misinformed but from what i've read feminism is about women equality (sure, you can say it's gender quality) but then what about racism, minorities etc? They should also be equal but it has nothing to do with the gender when it comes to those problems.
btw, i wrote "of only one group", not "only for one group", changes the meaning completely. Egalitarianism is not specific to gender issues. Feminism is about gender equality, specifically. Again, there is no such thing as "women equality", there is just equality between men and women = gender equality. Racism, minorities, etc are different topics from gender equality, that is why they are not included in the term.
Feminism is an umbrella term housing a lot of different ideologies. As with any other word in the world, the meaning of feminism derives from how people use it. You making up a definition is not really helpful. Feminism is not a synonym for gender equality.
|
Go, anonymity!
Trolls, trolls, trolls, racists, douchebags, assholes...
Begone, anonymity!
Right to privacy, bla bla bla
|
Zurich15310 Posts
On May 02 2013 22:33 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:17 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 22:04 Kotreb wrote:
@ zatic: i'm wondering why isn't it called egalitarianism, which denotes equality in its basic meaning? Maybe i'm misinformed but from what i've read feminism is about women equality (sure, you can say it's gender quality) but then what about racism, minorities etc? They should also be equal but it has nothing to do with the gender when it comes to those problems.
btw, i wrote "of only one group", not "only for one group", changes the meaning completely. Egalitarianism is not specific to gender issues. Feminism is about gender equality, specifically. Again, there is no such thing as "women equality", there is just equality between men and women = gender equality. Racism, minorities, etc are different topics from gender equality, that is why they are not included in the term. Feminism is an umbrella term housing a lot of different ideologies. As with any order word in the world, the meaning of feminism derives from how people use it. You making up a definition is not really helpful. Feminism is not a synonym for gender equality.
Alright fair enough.
Feminism the way I use it and everyone I know who calls themselves a feminist, including prominent figures who fight this out publicly, use it to mean gender equality.
There might be others who use it differently, even with derogatory connotation like we see in this thread. There is little I can do about it other that explaining what I believe the correct interpretation of the term is.
|
United States41934 Posts
On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 19:44 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:37 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:35 Goozen wrote:On May 02 2013 19:29 Velr wrote:On May 02 2013 19:21 Goozen wrote:
The only solution is remove anonymity, nothing else will work. The bottom line is that there are 2 kinds of people who obey the law. Those that who do it because its a law, and those who fear the punishment that they will receive from breaking it. As long as this vocal minority isn't forced to receive consequences for their action, they won't change.
And lets face it, it doesn't help that a fair number of women use their sexuality as a tool to gain benefits. Then there are teenagers (the main adience of stuff like this?) which often don't give a shit if there is no imminent/direct punishment... Which there never can and will be for stuff like this. These are not even "easy" cases... I mean, where do you draw the line between harsh criticism or some "vulgar language" and ILLEGAL sexism/harrasment? You would need to have a Judge reading over all this and decide case by case... Oh... And your on the Internet, that means these "offenders" can come from any country in the world, witch basically all have diffrent laws... If she (or anyone else) can't deal with it... Then don't do it. It's not like actors or other TV-Persons have it "better", they normally just don't read immediate chat feedback. Your going out there in front of a camera, you will gate rated, insulted and objectified... Deal with it. I know, thats the problem. There is no way to stop or prevent this, the most that can happen is that moderates remove comments and ban people from youtube. But lets face it, i doubt that will happen also. Saying "if you can't deal with it, don't do it" is the wrong attitude. Using this logic the police can say "don't wear revealing/ provocative clothing if you don't want to get harassed". There is a problem, there simply isnt much we can do, but blaming her is not the correct action. I agree, blaming her is not the correct action. I personally am not blaming her for this happening, although I will blame her for being a hypocrite (see my other posts) and also for dealing with this in the completely wrong way. Ignore the trolls, get someone to ban/censor them for you, or smite them. Going public with this (as if it's a big deal, as if there aren't thousand of other YouTube and Twitch channels that deal with this shit just as much as her) and playing victim will NOT accomplish Anything AT ALL. EDIT: Or she can even realize that these trolls still contribute to her page views, video views, channel views etc and by commenting they push her videos higher up the YouTube ladder. So she's basically able to make more money thanks to this negative attention. Could probably try to exploit that instead of getting all pissy. You realise that women are trained from an early age not to cause a scene when men do things they're not comfortable. That it's just boys being boys and they should just put up with it, from leering to catcalling all the way up to harassment. That if a woman actually says "why don't you just fuck off" then suddenly she's hormonal, overreacting and a bitch. People blame women for rape when they don't fight enough or say "no" loudly enough and they call them attention seekers when they call out harassment. It's a no win situation. Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet.
About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html
|
On May 02 2013 22:33 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:23 WhiteDog wrote:On May 02 2013 22:17 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 22:04 Kotreb wrote:
@ zatic: i'm wondering why isn't it called egalitarianism, which denotes equality in its basic meaning? Maybe i'm misinformed but from what i've read feminism is about women equality (sure, you can say it's gender quality) but then what about racism, minorities etc? They should also be equal but it has nothing to do with the gender when it comes to those problems.
btw, i wrote "of only one group", not "only for one group", changes the meaning completely. Egalitarianism is not specific to gender issues. Feminism is about gender equality, specifically. Again, there is no such thing as "women equality", there is just equality between men and women = gender equality. Racism, minorities, etc are different topics from gender equality, that is why they are not included in the term. Feminism in its history was really close to marxism at some point, with an analogy between the worker in the workplace and the woman in the familly (the two being dominated / alineated, etc.). There is a kind of feminism called black feminism that consider that most feminist is based around white women, and that feminism should be linked to the race, etc. I'm not saying you are wrong, but what Kotreb is pointing out is heavily discussed in feminism : can you really only talk about gender ? Does inequalities do system (like some sociologue think they do, Pfefferkorn & Bihr to begin with) ? etc. On May 02 2013 22:21 Jormundr wrote:On May 02 2013 22:17 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 22:04 Kotreb wrote:
@ zatic: i'm wondering why isn't it called egalitarianism, which denotes equality in its basic meaning? Maybe i'm misinformed but from what i've read feminism is about women equality (sure, you can say it's gender quality) but then what about racism, minorities etc? They should also be equal but it has nothing to do with the gender when it comes to those problems.
btw, i wrote "of only one group", not "only for one group", changes the meaning completely. Egalitarianism is not specific to gender issues. Feminism is about gender equality, specifically. Again, there is no such thing as "women equality", there is just equality between men and women = gender equality. Racism, minorities, etc are different topics from gender equality, that is why they are not included in the term. Feminism is about women. It sometimes tips the balance in certain areas towards equality, but its main goal is to improve the conditions of women. This is different than a gender equality perspective, which is neutral. This is not true. First you must understand that "feminism" is a word that is used to described a huge numbers of conceptions, and a lot of feminist don't think that EVERY women are strictly more dominated than men, but that the male domination is the rule in our society. This means that, as a rule, it dictate everything : the male domination dominate womens and mens. In this regard, feminists are fighting for equality and freedom in regard to the male domination, and not only to improve women situation in regard to male. One must not mix the feminism in the common sense and what feminist actually fought for. Feminism in its true sense is really complicated and diverse. What I said is entirely true. What you said is self-contradictory and only true if women are at a disadvantage in every possible way in society. This is not true. Therefore feminism does not equate with gender equality.
The interesting thing about it though is when you start to isolate issues wherein men are disadvantaged (child custody rights, child support, etc.) you can generally see that the root of those issues are the same biases to gender roles which negatively affect women.
For example, gender bias: Men work for money, women take care of kids. Therefore when you divorce your wife she should get the kids and you should have to pay to support them. Good for women? Maybe, but at the same time another 20 something year old women is applying for a job and is going to get turned down because her boss thinks she'll probably get pregnant and quit her work in the next 5 years, and probably doesn't think she should be working in the first place. If we can eliminate gender bias the situation for both sexes will get better.
|
Russian Federation367 Posts
And what does she want? 99% of girls doing the same shit to males: "here is my sexy look - like me" @ online; "you should behave with me as Im a princess or you will get no sex" @ real life. Of course Im a little bit exaggerating the situation, but overall it is like this, but a little bit more hidden. And by the way: even if a girl a clever interesting person with some kind of logic nature or something like this - they will behave in the same ways because of the nowdays lifestyle, but much more rarely.
|
On May 02 2013 22:33 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:23 WhiteDog wrote:On May 02 2013 22:17 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 22:04 Kotreb wrote:
@ zatic: i'm wondering why isn't it called egalitarianism, which denotes equality in its basic meaning? Maybe i'm misinformed but from what i've read feminism is about women equality (sure, you can say it's gender quality) but then what about racism, minorities etc? They should also be equal but it has nothing to do with the gender when it comes to those problems.
btw, i wrote "of only one group", not "only for one group", changes the meaning completely. Egalitarianism is not specific to gender issues. Feminism is about gender equality, specifically. Again, there is no such thing as "women equality", there is just equality between men and women = gender equality. Racism, minorities, etc are different topics from gender equality, that is why they are not included in the term. Feminism in its history was really close to marxism at some point, with an analogy between the worker in the workplace and the woman in the familly (the two being dominated / alineated, etc.). There is a kind of feminism called black feminism that consider that most feminist is based around white women, and that feminism should be linked to the race, etc. I'm not saying you are wrong, but what Kotreb is pointing out is heavily discussed in feminism : can you really only talk about gender ? Does inequalities do system (like some sociologue think they do, Pfefferkorn & Bihr to begin with) ? etc. On May 02 2013 22:21 Jormundr wrote:On May 02 2013 22:17 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 22:04 Kotreb wrote:
@ zatic: i'm wondering why isn't it called egalitarianism, which denotes equality in its basic meaning? Maybe i'm misinformed but from what i've read feminism is about women equality (sure, you can say it's gender quality) but then what about racism, minorities etc? They should also be equal but it has nothing to do with the gender when it comes to those problems.
btw, i wrote "of only one group", not "only for one group", changes the meaning completely. Egalitarianism is not specific to gender issues. Feminism is about gender equality, specifically. Again, there is no such thing as "women equality", there is just equality between men and women = gender equality. Racism, minorities, etc are different topics from gender equality, that is why they are not included in the term. Feminism is about women. It sometimes tips the balance in certain areas towards equality, but its main goal is to improve the conditions of women. This is different than a gender equality perspective, which is neutral. This is not true. First you must understand that "feminism" is a word that is used to described a huge numbers of conceptions, and a lot of feminist don't think that EVERY women are strictly more dominated than men, but that the male domination is the rule in our society. This means that, as a rule, it dictate everything : the male domination dominate womens and mens. In this regard, feminists are fighting for equality and freedom in regard to the male domination, and not only to improve women situation in regard to male. One must not mix the feminism in the common sense and what feminist actually fought for. Feminism in its true sense is really complicated and diverse. What I said is entirely true. What you said is self-contradictory and only true if women are at a disadvantage in every possible way in society. This is not true. Therefore feminism does not equate with gender equality.
Not at all. As I said, it is supposed that the male domination is a set of rule. A rule saying that men should behave a certain way (not crying, dress this way, be virile etc.) and that women should also behave a certain way.
I'm not contradicting myself at all : for exemple, some feminist would consider that we are all educated to prefer and lean toward a conservative familly, with a husband and a wife. That the man should be a bread winner, while the woman should take care of the familly, etc. In this situation, there is no specific dominated. It is not easy to be a bread winner.
I'm not saying that some feminist don't think that men are strictly dominating women in every field of the society, but those kind of feminists are dumb.
Anyway, feminism in itself is dumb.
|
On May 02 2013 22:31 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:27 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:23 McBengt wrote:On May 02 2013 22:06 gedatsu wrote:On May 02 2013 21:48 McBengt wrote:On May 02 2013 21:37 gedatsu wrote:On May 02 2013 21:26 McBengt wrote:On May 02 2013 21:19 gedatsu wrote:On May 02 2013 21:07 McBengt wrote:On May 02 2013 21:03 Kreb wrote:
[quote]
While I somewhat agree with what you say, whats the difference between "feminism" and "equality" (between sexes) then? The word feminism is kinda missleading in that case, since it quite clearly indicates its about something related to..... females. Nothing. Feminism is the struggle for equality between the sexes, that is its actual definition. The two are interchangable, the reason it was called feminism was simply because females have historically been oppressed and disenfranchised. That is not its actual definition, and feminism is not *the* struggle for equality between the sexes. The definition of feminism is more complicated than that (first of all it requires that you subscribe to patriarchy theory), and there are other struggles for equality between the sexes. See for example MRA. There is a huge difference between feminism (an ideology) and equality (which is the alleged goal of said ideology). To try to equalize feminism with either equality or "the" struggle for equality, is nothing but an attempt to silence differing opinions ("you think X so you must be a feminist, but you also said Y which is not feminist so you have to stop saying Y"). Furthermore, people can have different opinions about what equality truly means. Bob defines equality as when all men go to work and all women stay at home to cook and clean, but both these jobs are equally valued. You wouldn't call Bob a feminist, would you? It's the same error as, say, labeling libertarianism as "the" struggle for freedom. Freedom is the goal of libertarianism, but it's not the only ideology that aims for freedom and different people have different ideas of what freedom really is. So no. Stop telling lies about feminism. It does not do your movement any good anyway. I never suggested it was the only struggle, or that it would confine anyone to a specific set of values. It's a malleable concept, more a general idea than a laundry list of issues. I'm not really sure how anyone could not recognize at least parts of the patriarchy, it has some fairly extensive historic backing. As for Bob, I'd probably call him an asshole. Yes you did. Right here: Nothing. Feminism is the struggle for equality between the sexes, that is its actual definition. Patriarchy theory states, in general terms, that society benefits men at the expense of women. In my opinion the reverse is closer to the truth: if society can be said to have a purpose, it is to protect and serve women. Usually at men's expense. If you look at the groups in society with the lowest standing, they are all male. We think to ourselves that it is their own faults for ending up there, but if a woman were to end up there with them, we look for a culprit. When girls do poorly in school, we blame the school system, but when boys do poorly in school we blame the boys. Ironically, the reason that feminism sees such success is also the very thing that feminism tries to fight. Because at its core it is still a bunch of women complaining about stuff, and society doing what it has always done: rising to fix their problem. It is a very sexist behavior, but it is one that benefits women. Oh, ok, you're one of those. I am sorry that you have this strange persecution complex and that you labour under the massive misapprehension that society does not generally favour males. Your claims are a tad bit ridiculous, but I am glad you agree with yourself. Good job ignoring the issues I brought up. If you try hard enough, maybe you can will them out of existence. I see that you are from Sweden. Here are some fun facts about feminism and equality in Sweden: 1) women had the right to vote before men did, 1921 vs 1923. 2) when the male-only military draft was ended in 2010, only the feminist parties were in opposition. 3) women earn about 85% of what men do (not because of discrimination, but because of working less and in different jobs). However, due to high taxes and welfare payouts, women more than make up for the difference in a lifetime. 4) it is illegal to mutilate a baby girl's genitals, but perfectly ok to mutilate a baby boy's. 5) a woman gets two different ways out of an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of what the father feels. A man gets none, unless the woman agrees with him. 6) girls receive better grades simply for being girls. When the examiner does not know the gender of the examinee, girls do not get this bonus. 7) women receive lighter sentences by the judicial system, when committing the same crime. Actual points, good. 1. Incorrect. Both sexes were grant suffrage under the law in 1919. 2. Feminist parties? the vote was 153 in favour, 150 opposed. I doubt the one feminist party we have, which is not even in the parliament, could muster those votes. 3. Women make less than men on average, for the same work, it's been shown in multiple independent studies. The difference is less drastic that in many other countries, which is good. 4. I am vehemently opposed to circumcision in all forms, and would like to see it made illegal. 5. The right to choose is a basic part of the empowerment of women. I agree that some protection for men who do not wish to be fathers would be good. 6. Untrue, girls in general just perform better in swedish schools. I speak from both personal experience and from studying several surveys on the topic. 7. This is true, and an affront. I would like to see full equality practiced by the judicial system as well. Now why don't you tell me some of the benefits I enjoy simply for being a man. Better pay, more likely to get hired, a higher tolerance for eccentricity and generally deviant behaviour from society, to name a few. Shit man, we need to crack down on "deviant behaviour". The men practicing "deviant behaviour" throughout history have been the ones to make some progress - e.g. basically every inventor ever (yeah, minus kevlar). Galileo, Da Vinci, hell even Jesus are the kind of guys that I'm sure could be considered "deviant" but they did more for society than all the people hatin' on them combined. You may have misunderstood, it was not meant to carry any negative connotations. I should have worded that better, apologies. I agree that genius and deviancy are often intertwined, which was kind of the point. Society is typically more accepting of males who are outliers in terms of personality than females. If anything, I'd like to see more women with the kind of eccentric personalities as the people you mentioned.
I honestly don't buy the line that women have represented far less of the world's invention and product creation throughout history as a result of "oppression", as far as I'm concerned testosterone/reproductive role differences make them less predisposed to taking a risk and trying something society might not approve of. Inventions are exactly that. In the words of a great, 50 year old female fromer English teacher of mine who said she preferred teaching at a boy's school because they are the ones that say "Yeah, but what if..."
|
On May 02 2013 22:23 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:06 gedatsu wrote:
Good job ignoring the issues I brought up. If you try hard enough, maybe you can will them out of existence.
I see that you are from Sweden. Here are some fun facts about feminism and equality in Sweden:
1) women had the right to vote before men did, 1921 vs 1923.
2) when the male-only military draft was ended in 2010, only the feminist parties were in opposition.
3) women earn about 85% of what men do (not because of discrimination, but because of working less and in different jobs). However, due to high taxes and welfare payouts, women more than make up for the difference in a lifetime.
4) it is illegal to mutilate a baby girl's genitals, but perfectly ok to mutilate a baby boy's.
5) a woman gets two different ways out of an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of what the father feels. A man gets none, unless the woman agrees with him.
6) girls receive better grades simply for being girls. When the examiner does not know the gender of the examinee, girls do not get this bonus.
7) women receive lighter sentences by the judicial system, when committing the same crime.
Actual points, good. 1. Incorrect. Both sexes were grant suffrage under the law in 1919. 2. Feminist parties? the vote was 153 in favour, 150 opposed. I doubt the one feminist party we have, which is not even in the parliament, could muster those votes. 3. Women make less than men on average, for the same work, it's been shown in multiple independent studies. The difference is less drastic that in many other countries, which is good. 4. I am vehemently opposed to circumcision in all forms, and would like to see it made illegal. 5. The right to choose is a basic part of the empowerment of women. I agree that some protection for men who do not wish to be fathers would be good. 6. Untrue, girls in general just perform better in swedish schools. I speak from both personal experience and from studying several surveys on the topic. 7. This is true, and an affront. I would like to see full equality practiced by the judicial system as well. Show nested quote +Now why don't you tell me some of the benefits I enjoy simply for being a man. Better pay, more likely to get hired, a higher tolerance for eccentricity and generally deviant behaviour from society, to name a few.
1. No. Until 1923, men still had to perform military duty to earn their ability to vote. Women were allowed to vote simply for having a vagina.
2. The Left Party, Social Democrats and Green Party voted against. They happen to be the parliamentary parties that officially label themselves as feminist.
3. They make less, for different work. See http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Löneskillnader_mellan_män_och_kvinnor_i_Sverige#Sverige where several studies report very small differences, and see also the rightmost column demonstrating that there are still relevant factors that were not taken into account.
6. Again, when the examiner does not know the gender of the person they are grading, girls do not get better grades than boys. But when the examiner does know that, girls do get better grades. This is a very demonstrable case of discrimination.
I covered the pay issue above. More likely to be hired is a big joke, see affirmative action and the fact that more men than women are unwillingly unemployed (and the difference is increasing). I don't even know what higher tolerance for eccentricity is supposed to mean.
|
Wonder how she feels about women uncovering themselves with regularity in the biggest media source of all, television.
|
On May 02 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 19:44 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:37 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:35 Goozen wrote:On May 02 2013 19:29 Velr wrote:On May 02 2013 19:21 Goozen wrote:
The only solution is remove anonymity, nothing else will work. The bottom line is that there are 2 kinds of people who obey the law. Those that who do it because its a law, and those who fear the punishment that they will receive from breaking it. As long as this vocal minority isn't forced to receive consequences for their action, they won't change.
And lets face it, it doesn't help that a fair number of women use their sexuality as a tool to gain benefits. Then there are teenagers (the main adience of stuff like this?) which often don't give a shit if there is no imminent/direct punishment... Which there never can and will be for stuff like this. These are not even "easy" cases... I mean, where do you draw the line between harsh criticism or some "vulgar language" and ILLEGAL sexism/harrasment? You would need to have a Judge reading over all this and decide case by case... Oh... And your on the Internet, that means these "offenders" can come from any country in the world, witch basically all have diffrent laws... If she (or anyone else) can't deal with it... Then don't do it. It's not like actors or other TV-Persons have it "better", they normally just don't read immediate chat feedback. Your going out there in front of a camera, you will gate rated, insulted and objectified... Deal with it. I know, thats the problem. There is no way to stop or prevent this, the most that can happen is that moderates remove comments and ban people from youtube. But lets face it, i doubt that will happen also. Saying "if you can't deal with it, don't do it" is the wrong attitude. Using this logic the police can say "don't wear revealing/ provocative clothing if you don't want to get harassed". There is a problem, there simply isnt much we can do, but blaming her is not the correct action. I agree, blaming her is not the correct action. I personally am not blaming her for this happening, although I will blame her for being a hypocrite (see my other posts) and also for dealing with this in the completely wrong way. Ignore the trolls, get someone to ban/censor them for you, or smite them. Going public with this (as if it's a big deal, as if there aren't thousand of other YouTube and Twitch channels that deal with this shit just as much as her) and playing victim will NOT accomplish Anything AT ALL. EDIT: Or she can even realize that these trolls still contribute to her page views, video views, channel views etc and by commenting they push her videos higher up the YouTube ladder. So she's basically able to make more money thanks to this negative attention. Could probably try to exploit that instead of getting all pissy. You realise that women are trained from an early age not to cause a scene when men do things they're not comfortable. That it's just boys being boys and they should just put up with it, from leering to catcalling all the way up to harassment. That if a woman actually says "why don't you just fuck off" then suddenly she's hormonal, overreacting and a bitch. People blame women for rape when they don't fight enough or say "no" loudly enough and they call them attention seekers when they call out harassment. It's a no win situation. Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet. About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html
Yeah, well about 25% of rape accusations are false. Funny how that works out.
Note "They stated, "Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html#ixzz2S8u0MWPX"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
