Discussion in 'Community' started by blubeast1237, Aug 1, 2014.
Since when was this thread about autoerotica?
i have no idea what's happening itt
I've never had my car stolen. I've never been raped. However, I can't see how the two are close to comparable. Not even close to being on the same page. Or the same book.
What do you think about articles like these? Do these not objectify women? And this was written by a woman.
As I've said before, I'm all for equality personally, but I think it's a bit harsh to expect everyone else to have the same viewpoint as you do, and not be willing to hear reasonable views from other people. Feminism has done a lot for women, but it's not the end all and be all of progressiveness.
um yes. yes they do objectify women. i dont think that's even controversial. nor is the idea that women can be involved in objectification of women.
seriously, get the **** outta here with this basic ****, homie. come back when you've, like, read a book or something
My point is that just because women tend to be objectified more than men do, doesn't mean you can't be for equal rights. Some in this thread are taking a Palpatine/Bush like "you're with me or against me" stance, which doesn't have any place in public discourse/
Can we leave pubic de-lousing out of this?
everybody knows women are objectified more than men are. not even the most blithering idiot MRA would claim otherwise. what are you talking about? whatever it is, you are really, really, really bad at talking about it
I'm talking about the fact that being chivilrous, enjoying how women look, women being homemakers/receptionists/nurses/teachers, etc. shouldn't be lumped into the same category as being anti-feminist.
It's quite hilarious that Australia's Education Minister doesn't believe that women are well represented in university degrees that lead to high incomes, like dentists and lawyers. Apparently women just become teachers and nurses.
In fact there are more women than men in dentistry and law but I guess some people are just tied to the 1950s. He's not even that old. What a tosser.
That's because it isn't. Strawman be gone!
And Lee Rhiannon's too busy making **** up about what he said to notice how bad it actually was.
We're screwed, LOH.
Turnbull for PM.
And then there's Ender who had to be edited and warned for repeatedly calling everyone who posted in that thread a rapist.
I don't think she was trying to say the two were equivalent.
Instead, I think she was going for some sort of suggestion that they might have common underlying sentiment. Rape, for instance, is very much about asserting power over another individual. Likewise, the need for theft in this case also suggests some sort of need to violate other people or act aggressively towards them. That's how I read her post, anyway.
There is no "reasonable view" that opposes equality for women. Quite a few versions of the same misosgynist antiquated view, but not one single reasonable view.
Let's try another version of your statement: "I'm personally all for white people and black people having the same rights as citizens, but we should be willing to listen to reasonable views in favor of black people being treated differently due to the color of their skin."
If racists do not have "reasonable views," which I think most people with common sense would agree that they do not, why are we assuming that sexists have "reasonable views"?
As to the rest of your post: women being teachers/nurses/homemakers is not the problem. Women being told that they have no choice in that matter or that they "should" be teachers/nurses/homemakers because of their gender--and that teachers and nurses should be paid less because they are female-dominated--therein lies the problem. Or alternatively, men being told that they "shouldn't" hold those jobs.
We addressed the pay issue earlier and it was determined that America has ****ed-up priorities and appreciates the development of widgets more than the development of human beings, so I'd say that sexism plays less of a role in the pay difference but it still pays some of a role.
As far as appreciating a pretty woman--covered already as well. I don't care whether you or any other man looks at a woman in a bikini or not, just don't make dumbass sexist comments indicating that you (general "you") think she's no different from a doll and only exists as your plaything. And leave me alone while I watch the US Men's Olympic Swim Team.
What do you mean by "chivalrous?"
Actually... I think there's exactly one. And that's jobs / careers / tasks that require a specific level of physicality. Now, again, this depends on what you define as "equality" -- whether you mean "equal representation" or "equal opportunity" -- in which case, in the former this would apply. If the latter, then yes -- there's no reasonable view that opposes equal opportunity for women.
The example I would use is the US Armed Forces. Women are free to apply to any of the branches I believe in any MOS but the USMC apparently are considering changing their "minimum physical standard" criteria because of the pull-up requirement being disproportionately affecting women candidates (or have changed it; I don't recall when I've read these). I think that's a mistake (and apparently the only branch where the PFT was causing low representation) because -- in my view -- if there's a minimum standard for a physical fitness test for a specific thing, and someone can't meet it regardless of gender, that's cool. It shouldn't be changed due to representation.
And, let me tell you: in no way could I pass this test. Any women that could should be eligible. Any man that could should be eligible.
Is that a crazy stance?
No, not at all. I'm personally not a fan of "equal representation" for the hell of it. I find it insulting. 'Because you are a woman, we need to give this to you.' It's passive-aggressive or benevolent sexism.
I'm not familiar with specifics of military fitness tests and women tend to be smaller and have different muscle tone than men, but we are capable of reaching equal levels of fitness, i.e. we are not "weaker".
So...yes. Any woman who can pass the test should be eligible, and so should any man.
She said "fitness" not "physical strength" or the "ability to lift heavy things." Fitness and physical health are defined by a lot of things -- flexibility, for one, where women generally have the advantage. Additionally, women tend to have stronger immune systems (slightly more boys than girls are born in order to compensate for this deficiency). And women tend to live longer.
Sure, men have more muscle mass and build muscle much more easily. But there's a lot more to health, fitness, and overall strength than simply a few aspects.
This is tagged as a Senate thread. Just some advice, but you may want to expand on your answers a bit. If you disagree, go ahead and state why.
Trolls don't tend to do that, especially trolls who aren't even good at trolling.
Kudos to you for trying though.