|
|
|
On June 11 2013 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 07:24 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 07:00 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:30 TheExile19 wrote:On June 11 2013 06:26 JimmiC wrote:
This dumb point I made was a quote from you or thieving saying that only looks matter. A direct quote. So apprently you dont understand that there athletic standing matters cause if did you wouldn't use the word only. Maybe you should look it up. You appear able to use big words, but I think you don't even understand the small ones.
Exile I love hwo you argue against examples with numbers, basically you are saying "I can't proove my point because it's wrong, so instead I'm going to write strawman a bunch, throw in some big words that I hope you don't understand, and maybe you will agree and not realize that I ahve no idea what I'm talking about."
haha, really? boy oh boy am I done with you. Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men. It's best to ignore him now until he's calmed down. Not an MRA, but congratulations on the strawman. Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men. See exile  Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up It's their way, happens all the time. If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves. Defame? So you actually believe that men have more rights than women? Surprise, surprise, more lies and mischaracterization from you. The post of yours I originally responded to encapsulates the following ideas: A. MRAs get upset when others point out discrimination. B. The whole existence of MRAs is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. C. MRAs think women have more rights than men. D. Sunprince (and Jimmy) are MRAs, and therefore, all of the above is true of them. Therefore, you are accusing me of (A) getting upset when others point out discrimination, (B) my entire existence being to prove that men are the disenfranchised group, and (C), thinking that women have more rights than men. A is a baseless accusation as well as a shaming tactic, as well as a case of projection. If someone disagrees with your claims of discrimination, this does not imply they are upset, merely that they think you are factually incorrect. B is another baseless accusation. You cannot possibly know the purpose or entirety of my existence, and even if you were referring specifically to the existence of my TL account, even a cursory glance at my posting history suggests that this is not the case. C is the only notion there that is true. I do think that women have more "rights" than men, because this is objectively true. There is absolutely no area in which men have more legal "rights" than women, while men are clearly discriminated against with regards to reproductive and parental rights. Selective service is an obvious example as well, and there are many examples of funding allocated solely or predominantly to women, ranging from domestic violence funding to healthcare funding to special subsidies for women-owned businesses. D is another false statement. As stated, I do not identify as an MRA. I may agree and disagree with MRAs on some issues, but this is irrelevant to any arguments on those issues. Trying to use that to attack an argument instead of addressing the argument itself is a fallacy. It's plain for anyone to see that most of what you claimed (behind my back if I wasn't reading this thread, no less) was not accurate. But feel free to interpret my response as "evidence" that I hate women or some BS like that; that's clearly the kind of cowardly, fallacious tactic you prefer over logical discourse. I said Show nested quote +Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
And you said I was defaming you. So unless you believe that men have more rights than women, I'm not defaming you. My talking about MRA is not my talking about you--it quite literally is me talking about the MRA. The fact that you have on many threads talked about how women more rights than men is a truth about you. I said that MRA guys get upset when you point out that what they're saying is ___cist in some way. My example is of you telling me that women have more rights than men, do you or do you not believe that? If you don't believe that women have more rights than men I'm sorry for my defamation. But if you do believe that women have more rights than men why are you upset?
You conveniently left out the rest of your post. Here's the relevant part I was addressing in full:
On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men
Are you simply incapable of debating honestly? By clipping out only a single sentence, you left out the rest of the context that I was obviously replying to.
|
On June 11 2013 08:11 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 08:00 TheExile19 wrote:On June 11 2013 07:53 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 06:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:00 r.Evo wrote:
...what exactly is bad about sexualization in both men or women's sports? If someone is attractive it's simply human to say "Hey, he/she is sexy!" ~ that statement is not mutually exclusive with any statement about that persons capabilities as an athlete. Within the confines of the specific action there is no harm. The problem people like myself have with it is not that sports sexualizes athletes but how that sexualization perpetuates social normative practices that encourages gender norms as opposed to allowing the fullness of possibility within youth. I don't like it when a mother calls her daughter princess any more than I don't like it when a yahoo article of a high school high jumper who just broke an american high school record is described as a model instead of being described as a record breaking athlete. + Show Spoiler +http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/record-setting-oregon-high-jumper-top-fashion-model-152515924.html It's the pieces adding up to a larger problematic whole wherein girls are taught to only care about their looks. Sports is not the problem, western culture is the problem. There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it. A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is. The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it. What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business". you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism. why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating. why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects. If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place. Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so. Show nested quote +plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc. If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal. Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender?
You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo.
I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine.
|
On June 11 2013 08:15 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 07:24 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 07:00 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:30 TheExile19 wrote:On June 11 2013 06:26 JimmiC wrote:
This dumb point I made was a quote from you or thieving saying that only looks matter. A direct quote. So apprently you dont understand that there athletic standing matters cause if did you wouldn't use the word only. Maybe you should look it up. You appear able to use big words, but I think you don't even understand the small ones.
Exile I love hwo you argue against examples with numbers, basically you are saying "I can't proove my point because it's wrong, so instead I'm going to write strawman a bunch, throw in some big words that I hope you don't understand, and maybe you will agree and not realize that I ahve no idea what I'm talking about."
haha, really? boy oh boy am I done with you. Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men. It's best to ignore him now until he's calmed down. Not an MRA, but congratulations on the strawman. Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men. See exile Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up It's their way, happens all the time. If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves. Defame? So you actually believe that men have more rights than women? Surprise, surprise, more lies and mischaracterization from you. The post of yours I originally responded to encapsulates the following ideas: A. MRAs get upset when others point out discrimination. B. The whole existence of MRAs is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. C. MRAs think women have more rights than men. D. Sunprince (and Jimmy) are MRAs, and therefore, all of the above is true of them. Therefore, you are accusing me of (A) getting upset when others point out discrimination, (B) my entire existence being to prove that men are the disenfranchised group, and (C), thinking that women have more rights than men. A is a baseless accusation as well as a shaming tactic, as well as a case of projection. If someone disagrees with your claims of discrimination, this does not imply they are upset, merely that they think you are factually incorrect. B is another baseless accusation. You cannot possibly know the purpose or entirety of my existence, and even if you were referring specifically to the existence of my TL account, even a cursory glance at my posting history suggests that this is not the case. C is the only notion there that is true. I do think that women have more "rights" than men, because this is objectively true. There is absolutely no area in which men have more legal "rights" than women, while men are clearly discriminated against with regards to reproductive and parental rights. Selective service is an obvious example as well, and there are many examples of funding allocated solely or predominantly to women, ranging from domestic violence funding to healthcare funding to special subsidies for women-owned businesses. D is another false statement. As stated, I do not identify as an MRA. I may agree and disagree with MRAs on some issues, but this is irrelevant to any arguments on those issues. Trying to use that to attack an argument instead of addressing the argument itself is a fallacy. It's plain for anyone to see that most of what you claimed (behind my back if I wasn't reading this thread, no less) was not accurate. But feel free to interpret my response as "evidence" that I hate women or some BS like that; that's clearly the kind of cowardly, fallacious tactic you prefer over logical discourse. I said Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
And you said I was defaming you. So unless you believe that men have more rights than women, I'm not defaming you. My talking about MRA is not my talking about you--it quite literally is me talking about the MRA. The fact that you have on many threads talked about how women more rights than men is a truth about you. I said that MRA guys get upset when you point out that what they're saying is ___cist in some way. My example is of you telling me that women have more rights than men, do you or do you not believe that? If you don't believe that women have more rights than men I'm sorry for my defamation. But if you do believe that women have more rights than men why are you upset? You conveniently left out the rest of your post. Here's the relevant part I was addressing in full: Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men Are you simply incapable of debating honestly? By clipping out only a single sentence, you left out the rest of the context that I was obviously replying to.
Yes. I talked about the MRA.
Then I talked about you, as an example.
I did not state that you represented the entirety of the MRA. I simply chose you because I knew you'd show up if anything feminist gets stated in order to tell them they're wrong. You did. What did I accuse you of? Thinking women had more rights than men--which you do.
I did not accuse you of being the entity known as the MRA. Just that people like you always show up in threads about women to tell us that women have all the rights and that feminists are terrorists. Also things you've said by the way
Now, you say you're not someone who believes in MRA stuff. Sorry for me to think that a person who thinks women have more rights than men and who thinks feminists are terrorists is part of the MRA. I guess that's your own personal biases against them which just so happen to accidentally line up with MRA teachings.
|
On June 11 2013 08:11 r.Evo wrote:
[
My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects.
If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place.
Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so.
but...this isn't a thread about anecdotal microeffects (this is a silly term), or wasn't until people erroneously started bringing up specific athletes to prove...whatever jimmic's been doing this whole time. I agree with all of what you're saying here, but the point of this thread is to argue from a macro standpoint, i.e. the overall concept of sexualization in sports, and so it's...kind of irrelevant, unless you can successfully evoke a specific, compelling example. just because the last few pages have been full of horrible specific bickering doesn't change that initial focus.
If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal.
I think sexualization in sports is a tiny blip on a flooded radar compared to most other issues of women's rights. the only reason I'm still here is because of the astounding amount of people who come into this thread and drive-by post that people shouldn't care about this at all because that's just the way society is maaaaaaaaaaan and dudes totally get discriminated against too. regardless, if I was more of an advocate for this subject and cared deeply, your cute little goalpost shifting here is still a fallacy; I'm allowed to pick and choose my interests.
Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender?
it's not my job, but it is something I think about occasionally and this site in particular seems to attract a lot of young men who simply cannot be asked to consider this subject for more than a second, so it's a good place to discuss it. "indoctrination" was a poor term in hindsight, because instead of implying that most people are generally content and complacent and unwilling to question the society that they don't consider to be fucking them over, it implies something more sinister and therefore more juvenile.
|
On June 11 2013 08:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 08:11 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:00 TheExile19 wrote:On June 11 2013 07:53 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 06:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:00 r.Evo wrote:
...what exactly is bad about sexualization in both men or women's sports? If someone is attractive it's simply human to say "Hey, he/she is sexy!" ~ that statement is not mutually exclusive with any statement about that persons capabilities as an athlete. Within the confines of the specific action there is no harm. The problem people like myself have with it is not that sports sexualizes athletes but how that sexualization perpetuates social normative practices that encourages gender norms as opposed to allowing the fullness of possibility within youth. I don't like it when a mother calls her daughter princess any more than I don't like it when a yahoo article of a high school high jumper who just broke an american high school record is described as a model instead of being described as a record breaking athlete. + Show Spoiler +http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/record-setting-oregon-high-jumper-top-fashion-model-152515924.html It's the pieces adding up to a larger problematic whole wherein girls are taught to only care about their looks. Sports is not the problem, western culture is the problem. There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it. A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is. The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it. What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business". you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism. why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating. why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects. If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place. Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so. plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc. If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal. Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender? You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo. I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine.
So let me sum up:
#1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender"
#2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care"
#3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave."
Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized.
Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive.
|
On June 11 2013 06:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 06:49 Zahir wrote:On June 11 2013 06:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:11 Maekchu wrote:Well, it's just how the world is. You might disagree with this, but what decides it is what the majority of the world population wants to watch. No one is going to come out and openly admit it, but there was a case some years ago where it was considered whether or not female badminton players should wear skirts like tennis players, in order to attract more viewers. But in most cases it's not that bad and it depends on the specific sport. I think one of the pretty obvious sports where you would say it is definitely sexualized is the Lingerie Football League. + Show Spoiler +We can discuss back and forth whether this is bad or not. But in the end, the amount of viewers will decide. The more viewers, the more money, the better training facilities etc. Yes, it is how the world is. I was under the assumption that the OP made this thread because, (a) he sees this happening in the world, and (b) he wants to know if it is our moral imperative to do something about it (or at least feel bad about it). Yeah, that's the thing. I don't see the wrong in this situation. Typically, moral issues involve some violation of rights, restrictions of freedoms, or unequal treatment. Whereas sports leagues are based on free association and voluntary contracts. Not like there's a rule against players refusing to join overly sexualized female leagues or starting a competing leagues with less sexualization/ profits. I think maybe the argument stems from the fact that I have a more limited view of rights then is currently trendy. I believe people have the right to form sports leagues, make rules for those leagues and make contracts with people who want to join in some way. I don't, however, believe that a person has the right to mandate that existings leagues bow down and conform with their idea of how athletes should be treated/presented. Nor does anyone have the right to tell a tv audience or group of sports fans what they should and shouldn't value when channel surfing, or attending events. Which is why I kept stating that the problem comes from western culture and not the sport itself. No one is against being pretty much like no one is against having sex. But deifying being pretty does affect youth that are still trying to find themselves. It'd be a much better world that if woman can go to a lingerie league and not have people think that she's only eye candy. The sport doesn't make her the eye candy, its the consumers that buy said product that creates that stigma.
While I agree that the better discussion to be had here is about culture, part of the problem with shifting the focus to such an abstract level is that everything becomes about feelings rather than facts. Without the specific actions of an organization or individual to assess, we speak in terms like "society sees X group as..." Or "group Y 'feels' 'oppressed' by society"
Without a specific trend, action or event to discuss, it is impossible to cast moral judgements one way or another. So if objectification in western culture is indeed a problem, perhaps we should focus on specific examples of why that is the case.
|
On June 11 2013 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 08:15 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 07:24 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 07:00 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:30 TheExile19 wrote:
[quote]
haha, really? boy oh boy am I done with you. Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men. It's best to ignore him now until he's calmed down. Not an MRA, but congratulations on the strawman. Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men. See exile Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up It's their way, happens all the time. If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves. Defame? So you actually believe that men have more rights than women? Surprise, surprise, more lies and mischaracterization from you. The post of yours I originally responded to encapsulates the following ideas: A. MRAs get upset when others point out discrimination. B. The whole existence of MRAs is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. C. MRAs think women have more rights than men. D. Sunprince (and Jimmy) are MRAs, and therefore, all of the above is true of them. Therefore, you are accusing me of (A) getting upset when others point out discrimination, (B) my entire existence being to prove that men are the disenfranchised group, and (C), thinking that women have more rights than men. A is a baseless accusation as well as a shaming tactic, as well as a case of projection. If someone disagrees with your claims of discrimination, this does not imply they are upset, merely that they think you are factually incorrect. B is another baseless accusation. You cannot possibly know the purpose or entirety of my existence, and even if you were referring specifically to the existence of my TL account, even a cursory glance at my posting history suggests that this is not the case. C is the only notion there that is true. I do think that women have more "rights" than men, because this is objectively true. There is absolutely no area in which men have more legal "rights" than women, while men are clearly discriminated against with regards to reproductive and parental rights. Selective service is an obvious example as well, and there are many examples of funding allocated solely or predominantly to women, ranging from domestic violence funding to healthcare funding to special subsidies for women-owned businesses. D is another false statement. As stated, I do not identify as an MRA. I may agree and disagree with MRAs on some issues, but this is irrelevant to any arguments on those issues. Trying to use that to attack an argument instead of addressing the argument itself is a fallacy. It's plain for anyone to see that most of what you claimed (behind my back if I wasn't reading this thread, no less) was not accurate. But feel free to interpret my response as "evidence" that I hate women or some BS like that; that's clearly the kind of cowardly, fallacious tactic you prefer over logical discourse. I said Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
And you said I was defaming you. So unless you believe that men have more rights than women, I'm not defaming you. My talking about MRA is not my talking about you--it quite literally is me talking about the MRA. The fact that you have on many threads talked about how women more rights than men is a truth about you. I said that MRA guys get upset when you point out that what they're saying is ___cist in some way. My example is of you telling me that women have more rights than men, do you or do you not believe that? If you don't believe that women have more rights than men I'm sorry for my defamation. But if you do believe that women have more rights than men why are you upset? You conveniently left out the rest of your post. Here's the relevant part I was addressing in full: On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men Are you simply incapable of debating honestly? By clipping out only a single sentence, you left out the rest of the context that I was obviously replying to. Yes. I talked about the MRA. Then I talked about you, as an example. I did not state that you represented the entirety of the MRA. I simply chose you because I knew you'd show up if anything feminist gets stated in order to tell them they're wrong. You did. What did I accuse you of? Thinking women had more rights than men--which you do.
I showed up because you mischaracterized me by name. I already explained how in a lengthy post.
Do you really expect anyone to buy it now that you turn around and feign ignorance? Get real, your hostility was obvious.
On June 11 2013 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:I did not accuse you of being the entity known as the MRA. Just that people like you always show up in threads about women to tell us that women have all the rights and that feminists are terrorists. Also things you've said by the way
I show up in lots of threads to point out blatant falsehoods, untruths, and other forms of bullshit. Anyone familiar with my TL habits is aware of this. It so happens that feminism is one example of an ideology that propagates bullshit, but that's no different from religious extremists or other such groups.
On June 11 2013 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Now, you say you're not someone who believes in MRA stuff. Sorry for me to think that a person who thinks women have more rights than men and who thinks feminists are terrorists is part of the MRA. I guess that's your own personal biases against them which just so happen to accidentally line up with MRA teachings.
Again with the mischaracterization; it's almost like your lies are pathological.
The fact that feminism's basic tenets are objective wrong or the fact that feminists have engaged in terrorism are "personal biases" in the same sense that atheism or believing in climate change are "personal biases".
|
On June 11 2013 08:27 r.Evo wrote:
So let me sum up:
#1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender"
#2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care"
#3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave."
Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized.
Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive.
what on earth are you talking about
both of my statements regard people who are too content with their lives, too used to the basic flow of wherever they are in a given society to consider huge societal change as being worth an iota of their time. it isn't just women that feel this way about gender issues, it's how most people feel about issues that could possibly affect them if they aren't deeply involved in some sort of activism. if you're going to call me a misogynist, sigmund, you'd better go a lot harder than this.
On June 11 2013 08:35 sunprince wrote:
The fact that feminism's basic tenets are objective wrong or the fact that feminists have engaged in terrorism
rofl
|
On June 11 2013 08:27 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 08:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:11 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:00 TheExile19 wrote:On June 11 2013 07:53 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 06:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:00 r.Evo wrote:
...what exactly is bad about sexualization in both men or women's sports? If someone is attractive it's simply human to say "Hey, he/she is sexy!" ~ that statement is not mutually exclusive with any statement about that persons capabilities as an athlete. Within the confines of the specific action there is no harm. The problem people like myself have with it is not that sports sexualizes athletes but how that sexualization perpetuates social normative practices that encourages gender norms as opposed to allowing the fullness of possibility within youth. I don't like it when a mother calls her daughter princess any more than I don't like it when a yahoo article of a high school high jumper who just broke an american high school record is described as a model instead of being described as a record breaking athlete. + Show Spoiler +http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/record-setting-oregon-high-jumper-top-fashion-model-152515924.html It's the pieces adding up to a larger problematic whole wherein girls are taught to only care about their looks. Sports is not the problem, western culture is the problem. There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it. A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is. The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it. What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business". you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism. why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating. why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects. If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place. Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so. plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc. If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal. Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender? You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo. I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine. So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave." Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized. Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive.
Here's where we disagree.
The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active.
This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters.
This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object.
And it is because I honestly feel that women's rights are in a downward spiral, that women are losing rights, that women have less rights now than they did 10 years ago, that right wing politics is currently attacking and winning the fights over women's rights that I cannot with good conscience turn a blind eye when things that perpetuate the ideals and philosophies of those who are cutting away women's rights are done in front of me.
Yes, sports is a tiny tiny tiny field of many many fields where women are being attacked. But I'm sticking to the topic because it's the OP. My argument has always been abstract. When you treat someone more for their looks than their accomplishments, you sexualize them. This is not a female problem, this is a western culture problem. My examples have mainly been men and sheep to illustrate that I have no problem with attraction, I have a problem with the perpetuation of false ideals.
|
On June 11 2013 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 08:15 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 07:24 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 07:00 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:30 TheExile19 wrote:
[quote]
haha, really? boy oh boy am I done with you. Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men. It's best to ignore him now until he's calmed down. Not an MRA, but congratulations on the strawman. Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men. See exile Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up It's their way, happens all the time. If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves. Defame? So you actually believe that men have more rights than women? Surprise, surprise, more lies and mischaracterization from you. The post of yours I originally responded to encapsulates the following ideas: A. MRAs get upset when others point out discrimination. B. The whole existence of MRAs is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. C. MRAs think women have more rights than men. D. Sunprince (and Jimmy) are MRAs, and therefore, all of the above is true of them. Therefore, you are accusing me of (A) getting upset when others point out discrimination, (B) my entire existence being to prove that men are the disenfranchised group, and (C), thinking that women have more rights than men. A is a baseless accusation as well as a shaming tactic, as well as a case of projection. If someone disagrees with your claims of discrimination, this does not imply they are upset, merely that they think you are factually incorrect. B is another baseless accusation. You cannot possibly know the purpose or entirety of my existence, and even if you were referring specifically to the existence of my TL account, even a cursory glance at my posting history suggests that this is not the case. C is the only notion there that is true. I do think that women have more "rights" than men, because this is objectively true. There is absolutely no area in which men have more legal "rights" than women, while men are clearly discriminated against with regards to reproductive and parental rights. Selective service is an obvious example as well, and there are many examples of funding allocated solely or predominantly to women, ranging from domestic violence funding to healthcare funding to special subsidies for women-owned businesses. D is another false statement. As stated, I do not identify as an MRA. I may agree and disagree with MRAs on some issues, but this is irrelevant to any arguments on those issues. Trying to use that to attack an argument instead of addressing the argument itself is a fallacy. It's plain for anyone to see that most of what you claimed (behind my back if I wasn't reading this thread, no less) was not accurate. But feel free to interpret my response as "evidence" that I hate women or some BS like that; that's clearly the kind of cowardly, fallacious tactic you prefer over logical discourse. I said Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
And you said I was defaming you. So unless you believe that men have more rights than women, I'm not defaming you. My talking about MRA is not my talking about you--it quite literally is me talking about the MRA. The fact that you have on many threads talked about how women more rights than men is a truth about you. I said that MRA guys get upset when you point out that what they're saying is ___cist in some way. My example is of you telling me that women have more rights than men, do you or do you not believe that? If you don't believe that women have more rights than men I'm sorry for my defamation. But if you do believe that women have more rights than men why are you upset? You conveniently left out the rest of your post. Here's the relevant part I was addressing in full: On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men Are you simply incapable of debating honestly? By clipping out only a single sentence, you left out the rest of the context that I was obviously replying to. Yes. I talked about the MRA. Then I talked about you, as an example. I did not state that you represented the entirety of the MRA. I simply chose you because I knew you'd show up if anything feminist gets stated in order to tell them they're wrong. You did. What did I accuse you of? Thinking women had more rights than men--which you do. I did not accuse you of being the entity known as the MRA. Just that people like you always show up in threads about women to tell us that women have all the rights and that feminists are terrorists. Also things you've said by the way Now, you say you're not someone who believes in MRA stuff. Sorry for me to think that a person who thinks women have more rights than men and who thinks feminists are terrorists is part of the MRA. I guess that's your own personal biases against them which just so happen to accidentally line up with MRA teachings.
How exactly are you going to achieve equality (in whatever misguided sense this word is being used these days with regards to gender) for women? You cannot 'empower' women to 'equality', you can only subjugate men who by virtue of their masculinity are naturally dominant (permit my generalisations).
|
On June 11 2013 08:41 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:15 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 07:24 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 07:00 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
It's best to ignore him now until he's calmed down. Not an MRA, but congratulations on the strawman. Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men. See exile Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up It's their way, happens all the time. If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves. Defame? So you actually believe that men have more rights than women? Surprise, surprise, more lies and mischaracterization from you. The post of yours I originally responded to encapsulates the following ideas: A. MRAs get upset when others point out discrimination. B. The whole existence of MRAs is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. C. MRAs think women have more rights than men. D. Sunprince (and Jimmy) are MRAs, and therefore, all of the above is true of them. Therefore, you are accusing me of (A) getting upset when others point out discrimination, (B) my entire existence being to prove that men are the disenfranchised group, and (C), thinking that women have more rights than men. A is a baseless accusation as well as a shaming tactic, as well as a case of projection. If someone disagrees with your claims of discrimination, this does not imply they are upset, merely that they think you are factually incorrect. B is another baseless accusation. You cannot possibly know the purpose or entirety of my existence, and even if you were referring specifically to the existence of my TL account, even a cursory glance at my posting history suggests that this is not the case. C is the only notion there that is true. I do think that women have more "rights" than men, because this is objectively true. There is absolutely no area in which men have more legal "rights" than women, while men are clearly discriminated against with regards to reproductive and parental rights. Selective service is an obvious example as well, and there are many examples of funding allocated solely or predominantly to women, ranging from domestic violence funding to healthcare funding to special subsidies for women-owned businesses. D is another false statement. As stated, I do not identify as an MRA. I may agree and disagree with MRAs on some issues, but this is irrelevant to any arguments on those issues. Trying to use that to attack an argument instead of addressing the argument itself is a fallacy. It's plain for anyone to see that most of what you claimed (behind my back if I wasn't reading this thread, no less) was not accurate. But feel free to interpret my response as "evidence" that I hate women or some BS like that; that's clearly the kind of cowardly, fallacious tactic you prefer over logical discourse. I said Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
And you said I was defaming you. So unless you believe that men have more rights than women, I'm not defaming you. My talking about MRA is not my talking about you--it quite literally is me talking about the MRA. The fact that you have on many threads talked about how women more rights than men is a truth about you. I said that MRA guys get upset when you point out that what they're saying is ___cist in some way. My example is of you telling me that women have more rights than men, do you or do you not believe that? If you don't believe that women have more rights than men I'm sorry for my defamation. But if you do believe that women have more rights than men why are you upset? You conveniently left out the rest of your post. Here's the relevant part I was addressing in full: On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men Are you simply incapable of debating honestly? By clipping out only a single sentence, you left out the rest of the context that I was obviously replying to. Yes. I talked about the MRA. Then I talked about you, as an example. I did not state that you represented the entirety of the MRA. I simply chose you because I knew you'd show up if anything feminist gets stated in order to tell them they're wrong. You did. What did I accuse you of? Thinking women had more rights than men--which you do. I did not accuse you of being the entity known as the MRA. Just that people like you always show up in threads about women to tell us that women have all the rights and that feminists are terrorists. Also things you've said by the way Now, you say you're not someone who believes in MRA stuff. Sorry for me to think that a person who thinks women have more rights than men and who thinks feminists are terrorists is part of the MRA. I guess that's your own personal biases against them which just so happen to accidentally line up with MRA teachings. How exactly are you going to achieve equality (in whatever misguided sense this word is being used these days with regards to gender) for women? You cannot 'empower' women to 'equality', you can only subjugate men who by virtue of their masculinity are naturally dominant (permit my generalisations).
1) you mean artificially dominant in modern society? no aspect of having male hormones accounts for the huge imbalance of men in positions of power, no concept of masculinity justifies some dominance by fiat.
2) "can only subjugate men"? the entire point of a progressive view of gender is to remove absurd notions of sex being so dominant as to justify imbalances like the ones I've repeated in this thread ad nauseum. I can't tell how seriously you're putting forward this idea, but the idea that men are in any way subjugated by a simple rebalancing towards equality is juvenile in the extreme.
|
yes, women's sports is sexualized.
so is men's sports.
because the future of our species relies upon sexual reproduction mother nature has built humans to have a sexual component in nearly everything they do.
if we were less sexual in our day-to-day lives humans would've been wiped off the face of the earth long, long ago.
any totalitarian system always try to "control" human sexuality in some way..
whether its the church or nazi germany or the soviet union.
everything is sexualized.
learn to love it.
|
On June 11 2013 08:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 08:27 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:11 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:00 TheExile19 wrote:On June 11 2013 07:53 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 06:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:00 r.Evo wrote:
...what exactly is bad about sexualization in both men or women's sports? If someone is attractive it's simply human to say "Hey, he/she is sexy!" ~ that statement is not mutually exclusive with any statement about that persons capabilities as an athlete. Within the confines of the specific action there is no harm. The problem people like myself have with it is not that sports sexualizes athletes but how that sexualization perpetuates social normative practices that encourages gender norms as opposed to allowing the fullness of possibility within youth. I don't like it when a mother calls her daughter princess any more than I don't like it when a yahoo article of a high school high jumper who just broke an american high school record is described as a model instead of being described as a record breaking athlete. + Show Spoiler +http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/record-setting-oregon-high-jumper-top-fashion-model-152515924.html It's the pieces adding up to a larger problematic whole wherein girls are taught to only care about their looks. Sports is not the problem, western culture is the problem. There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it. A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is. The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it. What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business". you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism. why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating. why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects. If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place. Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so. plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc. If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal. Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender? You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo. I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine. So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave." Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized. Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive. Here's where we disagree. The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active. This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters. This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object. And it is because I honestly feel that women's rights are in a downward spiral, that women are losing rights, that women have less rights now than they did 10 years ago, that right wing politics is currently attacking and winning the fights over women's rights that I cannot with good conscience turn a blind eye when things that perpetuate the ideals and philosophies of those who are cutting away women's rights are done in front of me. Yes, sports is a tiny tiny tiny field of many many fields where women are being attacked. But I'm sticking to the topic because it's the OP. My argument has always been abstract. When you treat someone more for their looks than their accomplishments, you sexualize them. This is not a female problem, this is a western culture problem. My examples have mainly been men and sheep to illustrate that I have no problem with attraction, I have a problem with the perpetuation of false ideals.
As concerns birth control/foster care system. Refusing to subsidize another persons lifestyle choice is not the same as denying them that choice. If anything it's oppressive to force people to shell out money so that others can have the resources they need to be promiscuous as they please. It's one thing to fight for ones rights, another thing to fight for the right to another persons wallet.
|
On June 11 2013 08:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 08:27 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:11 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:00 TheExile19 wrote:On June 11 2013 07:53 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 06:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:00 r.Evo wrote:
...what exactly is bad about sexualization in both men or women's sports? If someone is attractive it's simply human to say "Hey, he/she is sexy!" ~ that statement is not mutually exclusive with any statement about that persons capabilities as an athlete. Within the confines of the specific action there is no harm. The problem people like myself have with it is not that sports sexualizes athletes but how that sexualization perpetuates social normative practices that encourages gender norms as opposed to allowing the fullness of possibility within youth. I don't like it when a mother calls her daughter princess any more than I don't like it when a yahoo article of a high school high jumper who just broke an american high school record is described as a model instead of being described as a record breaking athlete. + Show Spoiler +http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/record-setting-oregon-high-jumper-top-fashion-model-152515924.html It's the pieces adding up to a larger problematic whole wherein girls are taught to only care about their looks. Sports is not the problem, western culture is the problem. There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it. A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is. The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it. What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business". you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism. why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating. why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects. If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place. Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so. plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc. If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal. Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender? You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo. I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine. So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave." Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized. Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive. Here's where we disagree. The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active. This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters. This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object.
The spiral you're describing says womens have their rights taken away, which forces them to abide an unfavorable system and are then stupid enough to tell their children that being beautiful is better than being accomplished.
Apparently (judging from the lack of general outrage amongst women) their rights aren't that bad after all. As I mentioned earlier, try taking examples that are more extreme then "majority of sports viewers enjoy looking at nice boobies" and see if women would stand on the streets burning down cars to make noise. It's fine to say that being beautiful and being "princess-like" is a good thing. It's not fine to tell someone else that being accomplished in life is what their goal should be. One is expressing your view on an issue, the other is trying to tell someone else what view they should have on an issue.
There is no earth-wide mindcontrol project that tells women to be sex objects and single mothers. Women can speak up for themselves, so can men. All I see here is males rambling about how exactly they think they have to save women as a gender from just giving their rights away, pretending they're too inferior to men to defend themselves in the process.
|
On June 11 2013 08:41 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:15 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 07:24 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 07:00 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
It's best to ignore him now until he's calmed down. Not an MRA, but congratulations on the strawman. Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men. See exile Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up It's their way, happens all the time. If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves. Defame? So you actually believe that men have more rights than women? Surprise, surprise, more lies and mischaracterization from you. The post of yours I originally responded to encapsulates the following ideas: A. MRAs get upset when others point out discrimination. B. The whole existence of MRAs is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. C. MRAs think women have more rights than men. D. Sunprince (and Jimmy) are MRAs, and therefore, all of the above is true of them. Therefore, you are accusing me of (A) getting upset when others point out discrimination, (B) my entire existence being to prove that men are the disenfranchised group, and (C), thinking that women have more rights than men. A is a baseless accusation as well as a shaming tactic, as well as a case of projection. If someone disagrees with your claims of discrimination, this does not imply they are upset, merely that they think you are factually incorrect. B is another baseless accusation. You cannot possibly know the purpose or entirety of my existence, and even if you were referring specifically to the existence of my TL account, even a cursory glance at my posting history suggests that this is not the case. C is the only notion there that is true. I do think that women have more "rights" than men, because this is objectively true. There is absolutely no area in which men have more legal "rights" than women, while men are clearly discriminated against with regards to reproductive and parental rights. Selective service is an obvious example as well, and there are many examples of funding allocated solely or predominantly to women, ranging from domestic violence funding to healthcare funding to special subsidies for women-owned businesses. D is another false statement. As stated, I do not identify as an MRA. I may agree and disagree with MRAs on some issues, but this is irrelevant to any arguments on those issues. Trying to use that to attack an argument instead of addressing the argument itself is a fallacy. It's plain for anyone to see that most of what you claimed (behind my back if I wasn't reading this thread, no less) was not accurate. But feel free to interpret my response as "evidence" that I hate women or some BS like that; that's clearly the kind of cowardly, fallacious tactic you prefer over logical discourse. I said Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
And you said I was defaming you. So unless you believe that men have more rights than women, I'm not defaming you. My talking about MRA is not my talking about you--it quite literally is me talking about the MRA. The fact that you have on many threads talked about how women more rights than men is a truth about you. I said that MRA guys get upset when you point out that what they're saying is ___cist in some way. My example is of you telling me that women have more rights than men, do you or do you not believe that? If you don't believe that women have more rights than men I'm sorry for my defamation. But if you do believe that women have more rights than men why are you upset? You conveniently left out the rest of your post. Here's the relevant part I was addressing in full: On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men Are you simply incapable of debating honestly? By clipping out only a single sentence, you left out the rest of the context that I was obviously replying to. Yes. I talked about the MRA. Then I talked about you, as an example. I did not state that you represented the entirety of the MRA. I simply chose you because I knew you'd show up if anything feminist gets stated in order to tell them they're wrong. You did. What did I accuse you of? Thinking women had more rights than men--which you do. I did not accuse you of being the entity known as the MRA. Just that people like you always show up in threads about women to tell us that women have all the rights and that feminists are terrorists. Also things you've said by the way Now, you say you're not someone who believes in MRA stuff. Sorry for me to think that a person who thinks women have more rights than men and who thinks feminists are terrorists is part of the MRA. I guess that's your own personal biases against them which just so happen to accidentally line up with MRA teachings. How exactly are you going to achieve equality (in whatever misguided sense this word is being used these days with regards to gender) for women? You cannot 'empower' women to 'equality', you can only subjugate men who by virtue of their masculinity are naturally dominant (permit my generalisations).
Feminism is focused on stopping and reversing the perpetuation of the practices where the female is equated to the lesser. Their goals are constantly in flux because they are constantly debating with each other just how to execute their goals.
Take, for example, prostitutes. Some feminists feel that a woman should have the ability to pursue any career she chooses--prostitution being one of them. Other feminists feel that anything that has historically been harmful to women needs to be expunged. They don't have a specific answer because the answer is always in flux. And this is true for all other aspects of life as well. The one constant in feminism is the seeking out of gender equality. To protect men and women who are being abused for seeming to have too feminine a trait. Homosexuals attacked for sounding too gay, trans people who get attacked for wearing dresses, women who get paid less than men, men who don't get children's rights because males are assumed to be less motherly than women.
Feminism is the attempt to fight back the enforcement of the "feminine identity" wherein things that seem female are looked down on. Such as wearing dresses, having a high pitched voice, etc... Feminism also wishes to spread out and make more acceptable the masculine identity. Aggressive girls, sexually promiscuous girls, etc... Their goal is that there is no male way of doing things, or female way of doing things. No male personality, or female personality. That everyone be treated equally.
It's not the vilifying of men. It's the acceptance of the feminine.
|
Feminism is the attempt to fight back the enforcement of the "feminine identity" wherein things that seem female are looked down on. Such as wearing dresses, having a high pitched voice, etc... Feminism also wishes to spread out and make more acceptable the masculine identity. Aggressive girls, sexually promiscuous girls, etc... Their goal is that there is no male way of doing things, or female way of doing things. No male personality, or female personality. That everyone be treated equally.
It's not the vilifying of men. It's the acceptance of the feminine.
Men and women are different. It's that simple. Ever thought about that?
|
|
|
On June 11 2013 08:52 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 08:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:27 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:11 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:00 TheExile19 wrote:On June 11 2013 07:53 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 06:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:00 r.Evo wrote:
...what exactly is bad about sexualization in both men or women's sports? If someone is attractive it's simply human to say "Hey, he/she is sexy!" ~ that statement is not mutually exclusive with any statement about that persons capabilities as an athlete. Within the confines of the specific action there is no harm. The problem people like myself have with it is not that sports sexualizes athletes but how that sexualization perpetuates social normative practices that encourages gender norms as opposed to allowing the fullness of possibility within youth. I don't like it when a mother calls her daughter princess any more than I don't like it when a yahoo article of a high school high jumper who just broke an american high school record is described as a model instead of being described as a record breaking athlete. + Show Spoiler +http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/record-setting-oregon-high-jumper-top-fashion-model-152515924.html It's the pieces adding up to a larger problematic whole wherein girls are taught to only care about their looks. Sports is not the problem, western culture is the problem. There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it. A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is. The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it. What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business". you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism. why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating. why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects. If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place. Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so. plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc. If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal. Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender? You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo. I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine. So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave." Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized. Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive. Here's where we disagree. The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active. This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters. This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object. The spiral you're describing says womens have their rights taken away, which forces them to abide an unfavorable system and are then stupid enough to tell their children that being beautiful is better than being accomplished. Apparently (judging from the lack of general outrage amongst women) their rights aren't that bad after all. As I mentioned earlier, try taking examples that are more extreme then "majority of sports viewers enjoy looking at nice boobies" and see if women would stand on the streets burning down cars to make noise. It's fine to say that being beautiful and being "princess-like" is a good thing. It's not fine to tell someone else that being accomplished in life is what their goal should be. One is expressing your view on an issue, the other is trying to tell someone else what view they should have on an issue.There is no earth-wide mindcontrol project that tells women to be sex objects and single mothers. Women can speak up for themselves, so can men. All I see here is males rambling about how exactly they think they have to save women as a gender from just giving their rights away, pretending they're too inferior to men to defend themselves in the process.
The reason you see mostly males in a video game forum has more to do with problems in gaming (and, in a sense, all male dominated) culture. There's a reason most people on TL are dudes--and its not genes, it's the way we treat men and women in society. As much as people would love for it to be true--there is no videogame gene.
There's nothing stupid about wanting to feel normal. And if normal is praising women for looks then there's nothing stupid about wanting that as well. It's normal for people to want to be normal. To not want to rock the boat. Society tells them what is normal. Society tells them how the boat stays steady. They aren't stupid, they're human. The encourage hetero norms for women the same way they encourage hetero norms for men. Neither are stupid for wanting to be normal.
I am simply against that social mindset of treating women as pretty objects much like I'm against the mindset of treating men as the superior.
|
On June 11 2013 08:46 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 08:41 bardtown wrote:On June 11 2013 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:15 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 07:24 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 07:00 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
Not an MRA, but congratulations on the strawman.
Also, the amount of projection going on in your post is hilarious. Clearly, you're the one upset about others pointing out ssexism, simply because it's sexism against men. See exile Like clockwork. Mention any kind of feminist idea and Sunprince shows up It's their way, happens all the time. If you're going to defame people by name, don't be surprised if they show up to defend themselves. Defame? So you actually believe that men have more rights than women? Surprise, surprise, more lies and mischaracterization from you. The post of yours I originally responded to encapsulates the following ideas: A. MRAs get upset when others point out discrimination. B. The whole existence of MRAs is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. C. MRAs think women have more rights than men. D. Sunprince (and Jimmy) are MRAs, and therefore, all of the above is true of them. Therefore, you are accusing me of (A) getting upset when others point out discrimination, (B) my entire existence being to prove that men are the disenfranchised group, and (C), thinking that women have more rights than men. A is a baseless accusation as well as a shaming tactic, as well as a case of projection. If someone disagrees with your claims of discrimination, this does not imply they are upset, merely that they think you are factually incorrect. B is another baseless accusation. You cannot possibly know the purpose or entirety of my existence, and even if you were referring specifically to the existence of my TL account, even a cursory glance at my posting history suggests that this is not the case. C is the only notion there that is true. I do think that women have more "rights" than men, because this is objectively true. There is absolutely no area in which men have more legal "rights" than women, while men are clearly discriminated against with regards to reproductive and parental rights. Selective service is an obvious example as well, and there are many examples of funding allocated solely or predominantly to women, ranging from domestic violence funding to healthcare funding to special subsidies for women-owned businesses. D is another false statement. As stated, I do not identify as an MRA. I may agree and disagree with MRAs on some issues, but this is irrelevant to any arguments on those issues. Trying to use that to attack an argument instead of addressing the argument itself is a fallacy. It's plain for anyone to see that most of what you claimed (behind my back if I wasn't reading this thread, no less) was not accurate. But feel free to interpret my response as "evidence" that I hate women or some BS like that; that's clearly the kind of cowardly, fallacious tactic you prefer over logical discourse. I said Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men.
And you said I was defaming you. So unless you believe that men have more rights than women, I'm not defaming you. My talking about MRA is not my talking about you--it quite literally is me talking about the MRA. The fact that you have on many threads talked about how women more rights than men is a truth about you. I said that MRA guys get upset when you point out that what they're saying is ___cist in some way. My example is of you telling me that women have more rights than men, do you or do you not believe that? If you don't believe that women have more rights than men I'm sorry for my defamation. But if you do believe that women have more rights than men why are you upset? You conveniently left out the rest of your post. Here's the relevant part I was addressing in full: On June 11 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Don't mind him. He's now responding to everything I say as if I'm talking to him. MRA guys get upset when you point out anything about them that is ___cist because their whole existence is to prove that men are the disenfranchised group. Just listen to Sunprince and even Jimmy (earlier in the thread) talk about how women have more rights than men Are you simply incapable of debating honestly? By clipping out only a single sentence, you left out the rest of the context that I was obviously replying to. Yes. I talked about the MRA. Then I talked about you, as an example. I did not state that you represented the entirety of the MRA. I simply chose you because I knew you'd show up if anything feminist gets stated in order to tell them they're wrong. You did. What did I accuse you of? Thinking women had more rights than men--which you do. I did not accuse you of being the entity known as the MRA. Just that people like you always show up in threads about women to tell us that women have all the rights and that feminists are terrorists. Also things you've said by the way Now, you say you're not someone who believes in MRA stuff. Sorry for me to think that a person who thinks women have more rights than men and who thinks feminists are terrorists is part of the MRA. I guess that's your own personal biases against them which just so happen to accidentally line up with MRA teachings. How exactly are you going to achieve equality (in whatever misguided sense this word is being used these days with regards to gender) for women? You cannot 'empower' women to 'equality', you can only subjugate men who by virtue of their masculinity are naturally dominant (permit my generalisations). 1) you mean artificially dominant in modern society? no aspect of having male hormones accounts for the huge imbalance of men in positions of power, no concept of masculinity justifies some dominance by fiat. 2) "can only subjugate men"? the entire point of a progressive view of gender is to remove absurd notions of sex being so dominant as to justify imbalances like the ones I've repeated in this thread ad nauseum. I can't tell how seriously you're putting forward this idea, but the idea that men are in any way subjugated by a simple rebalancing towards equality is juvenile in the extreme.
1. There's nothing artificial about the dominance of men. It's entirely natural. What is artificial is the modern notion of equality which completely ignores the differences that DO exist between the sexes. Don't confuse what you think is a justified state of affairs with what is natural.
2. Why is that juvenile? Because it's not progressive? To stop the dominance of men which they naturally exhibit you must take away their liberty to exercise said dominance.
Do me a favour and define the equality you think can be achieved. As I understand it the aim is to provide equal opportunities, and yet I think that given equal opportunities, men will still be predominant at the top tiers of government/business due to the masculine 'need' to dominate (or 'disposition towards ambition') and women childbearing, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://static.onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Lingerie-Football-League-056.jpg)
