Heh, so the word reparations gets your neo-nazi sense tingling. You know I said it in jest. The reparations part not the women treated like dogs part. They really were.
SEXISM! What's with the standards?
- Thread starter Darius Brogan
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Funny thing is: My point still stands.Phasmal said:
The first article, he was convicted of assault, but he doesn't have a cult following BECAUSE HE RAPED HER. He's popular because he's a basketball star. I challenge you to check on his future successes with the female crowd.
The second article focuses exclusively on the churches opinions, which I couldn't care less about anyways.
Once again: Find me a male rapist who has a following of men and women applauding his actions as a rapist.
I'm not trying to belittle women or their problems with rape and/or sexual assault, but you ARE almost completely ignoring anything that could possibly happen to a man, in favor of 'it happens more often to women'.
Here's the thing: Men report their abuse less than a third as often as women, because it's embarrassing.
No, they were not.For.I.Am.Mad said:
Women were treated as second-class citizens, not animals. Any common history book will tell you that.
Aside from the fact that, throughout almost all of history, women of various cultures have held positions of extreme power.
Queens, Empresses, Etc... So that kinda destroys your foundations. Hell, Cleopatra was long lauded as the single most powerful and beautiful woman in history.
See, historically speaking, people were subjugated by those in power, and treated as animals.
The only difference between me and a feminist is that I believe that the "Feminist" moniker is unneeded. It all should come under the banner of equality, which, in my opinion, is a far more powerful and unifying name. I stand for the rights and status of women in our society in the name of equality. The same way I do with LGBT people, disabled people, and and all ethnic minorities, all faiths. We all don't need these individual logo's and names, we should all come together and fight against the injustices that bother us all.Darius Brogan said:
I'm not ignoring your points, I just think we're talking past each other at the moment.Darius Brogan said:
It does happen more often to women, but that doesn't make it any less horrible when it happens to a man. I would encourage any man who I even suspected was being abused to seek help. Unfortunately, some attitudes like `its not manly`, are blocking people from coming forward.
I have absolutely no desire to go looking for rapists for you, and I dont want to make myself sick looking for people willing to CONGRATULATE them.
My original point is that the `black mark forever` theory doesn't stand.
This thread is totally derailing and just turning into what all these threads turn into.
Hmmmm... me. That wasn't hard.Matthew94 said:
Damn those non following women!
Not all women follow all `rules`, but I promise you every woman you know has to deal with the fear of rapists, and should they NOT follow the `rules`, the slut-shaming begins. She was asking for it, wearing a short skirt/walking alone/ being a woman.
Btw I put `rules` like that because they are Bullshit.
I'm pretty much retiring from this thread. Going to be busy with work and family matters this week. I'm sure you can get the gist of it though. I would say please dont quote me but someone will.
Well, if you're not ignoring them, you sure seem to be glazing over them.Phasmal said:I'm not ignoring your points, I just think we're talking past each other at the moment.
It does happen more often to women, but that doesn't make it any less horrible when it happens to a man. I would encourage any man who I even suspected was being abused to seek help. Unfortunately, some attitudes like `its not manly`, are blocking people from coming forward.
I have absolutely no desire to go looking for rapists for you, and I dont want to make myself sick looking for people willing to CONGRATULATE them.
My original point is that the `black mark forever` theory doesn't stand.
This thread is totally derailing and just turning into what all these threads turn into.
Hmmmm... me. That wasn't hard.Matthew94 said:
Damn those non following women!
Not all women follow all rules, but I promise you every woman you know has to deal with the fear of rapists, and should they NOT follow the `rules`, the slut-shaming begins. She was asking for it, wearing a short skirt/walking alone/ being a woman.
Men and women are, believe it or not, almost equal in terms of sexual assault/rape by either gender, and favoring one over the other isn't helping.
You seem to be pulling the same stunt you claimed I did earlier, as well.
I know damn well that happens (with the exception of 'being a woman'. I've never in my life, EVER heard of that being used as an excuse for ANYTHING), in fact, an example pops into my head almost immediately, but you completely ignored the fact that men are just as easily destroyed by false accusations as women.
Also: Those 'rules' are complete crap. Rapists NEVER rape women because they were out late, wearing skirts, or anything of the like, there is ALWAYS a mental motivation for it.
I've already addressed a comment similar to this one. Go back and find it. I'm not going to bother re-writing the whole thing again.Archangel357 said:
Suffice it to say that your whole comment comes out to 'bullshit'.
Nobody, but NOBODY deserves special treatment for something that happened to someone else hundreds or thousands of years ago. EVER.
If a Black man ridicules me, I ridicule him right back.
If a woman calls me a pig, I cal her a fucking *****.
You want equality. You GET equality. No exceptions.
You realize, don't you, that the simple fact that there were any women ANYWHERE allowed to take positions of power destroyed your argument? Queens, Empresses, Duchesses, Ladies, Baronesses, and the list goes on.Archangel357 said:
Find some statistics supporting your '1/100' and I'll believe you.
Also: Really? You're poking fun at my knowledge of history? Cleopatra was allowed to take power in the first place.
The Queen of England is nothing but a figurehead, and you're still liable for a $14,000 fine if you STARTLE HER.
No power? Totally.
You have no idea what you're talking about do you?Archangel357 said:
a) How am I wrong?
b) How is it ignorant?
c) I'm not American, therefore your equating me to a republican is meaningless.
d) People like YOU, who feel that, because a group was slighted decades ago, it somehow has the magical right to do the SAME THING to the group that slighted them are making damn sure there will never be equality in this world.
I'm done with you. You're pinning ignorance on me that doesn't exist. If you want to be treated equally I will treat you equally. There is not, and never will be an exception to that rule.
Yes, I was able to testify on his behalf, as I was present when 'all hell broke loose' as it were.ensouls said:
It didn't do much, unfortunately. The deliberations ended on the opinion that 'He took advantage of the crowd density in an attempt sexually harass her without notice'
It's been a couple years, so I could be paraphrasing, but it means the same thing.
Memory is fallible. Its been proved on several occasions in controlled lab tests that how people react to a situation often dictates how its remember by those who experienced it. Is she freaked out claiming he grabbed her ass and she did it loudly, shouting over his protest all anyone will remember is that he grabbed her ass and she was extremely offended regardless of what actually happened. This is in addition to personality biased memory bias and social conditioning.DevilWithaHalo said:
Not saying the story is true, simply stating that in something like this witnesses are unreliable at best.
OT: It is actually becoming an endemic problem that is slowly getting more and more recognition. The idea that sexism goes both way. The fact that religious and racial discrimination goes both ways are still largely ignored because to say anything at all on that subject it basically a licence to be slated and become the target for abuse nationally.
It stems from the idea that it is...Or was is probably more accurate for most things now with a few notable exceptions (front line soldiers), a mans world. We got so engrossed and still are, in defending the rights of the once oppressed we largely fail to realise that sometimes in close spaces brushing past someone is just that. Or that an unfortunate combination of movements from both parties can end with hands in unfortunate places. It happens, but atm in the legal system taking offence is the only real category required to make a claim and its very VERY hard to prove in a situation like this that you had no intent not in the least because "my hand just happened to end up there" sounds dodge even if its the truth.
I don't think he was saying "hurr durr women are horrible", I'm pretty sure he was saying "society is skewed in the favour of women's right above men's". I didn't really see a "WOMEN ARE EVIL" sentiment to his story.Phasmal said:
On topic, reminds me of the time I opened a door for a woman only to get blasted in the face with some speech about how she could have done it by herself, and me assuming she needed the door open for her was sexist. Didn't dull my opinion of women, just led me to the conclusion that radical feminists are called "radical" for a reason.
[small]Reason being that they're morons.[/small]
I'm 5'7. I weigh about 120 pounds. I can assure you that I'm not "bigger, hardier and stronger". I did however go to school, and I had to fight quite a lot.spartan231490 said:
Do you think the girls who were physically bigger than me and could probably punch me to the ground if they wanted to ever had to fight? No, they didn't, not because I was "bigger, hardier and stronger", but because they were girls.
Violence by men against other men doesn't happen because they're bigger, it doesn't happen because they're stronger, it happens because they're men. As men, we consider it acceptable to hit other men, regardless of size and regardless of strength, because we assume that they can deal with it, that it doesn't really hurt them physically or emotionally. We don't consider it acceptable to hit women, regardless of size and regardless of strength because we assume it does hurt them, physically or emotionally.
Stop invalidating your own argument. If you genuinely believe (as I actually do if you'd bothered to listen) that violence against men is worthy of the same consideration as violence against women, then don't fall back on these ridiculous Mars and Venus arguments.
Really?spartan231490 said:
Let me repeat one of my axioms again. Despite very seldom being victims of violence, women fear violence hugely more than men. They feel powerless, they doubt that they would be able to defend themselves, and they also fear that being physically overpowered would open them to sexual violence.
Have you ever worried about any of those things? Have you ever worried that if someone started a fight with you and physically overpowered you they might sexually assault you?
Would you rather people looked at you and assumed that you could handle yourself (and thus felt that they could get in your face or even hit you because it wouldn't really affect you that much) or would you rather they assumed you were not worth fighting, that if anyone did want anything from you they could just beat you into submission without any difficulty.
It starts with you. If you won't even take violence against yourself seriously, then where is your case for it being equally severe?
But most men, probably including you and I, treat it differently. That's what I'm saying. It's not a feminist conspiracy to seize control of the legal system, it's people like you and me who make this happen. It's our expectation of each other as men which means we don't take each other seriously.spartan231490 said:
You say you want it changed, I'm saying that change starts with you and me. Not with bad, evil women learning that they shouldn't slap their boyfriends, because that's a pretty insignificant minority of violence against men. The real violence against men, the enormous, enormous majority, involves men attacking other men in ways they would never think to attack women.
Don't punish women for following assumptions laid down to benefit men like you or me. That's bullshit.
Men are in general bigger, tougher, and stronger. Fact. I expressed the opinion, that this is probably the reason that this particular gender bias ocurred. I didn't say it was the reason it's still around. I didn't say that it makes any difference in individual cases. Stop putting words in my mouth, or I'm just going to ignore you and wash my hands of this whole thread. Also, your assumption that a woman couldn't beat you in a fight(I think that's what you said, the first paragraph makes no sense grammatically, I can't be sure what it says) just because she's a woman, is dramatically false. If you're saying she wouldn't, that's a cultural thing, it doesn't have anything to do with anything innately "woman"evilthecat said:
Again, putting words in my mouth. I never said that men hit other men because they're bigger than women. I said that the gender bias about fighting, in my opinion, originated from the physical difference between men and women, I.E. men are usually bigger, tougher, and stronger. That is the likely reason that violence against men became more acceptable. You can say that you're smaller than women all you want, it doesn't affect the norm. You can call it a men from mars/ women from venus argument, but it's not, it's a demonstrable scientific fact. And I am professing the belief that this gender bias originated from that fact.
No, I never worried about being physically overpowered and sexually assaulted. I never worried about being physically overpowered, but even if I did, I wouldn't worry about being sexually assaulted. What's your point? Again, you are confusing a cultural construct for reality. Women are perfectly capable of defending themselves if they are trained, and likely unable if not, but that's also true for men. But again, what's your point? What bearing does this have on the existence of this gender bias?
Also, I would very much like to see some proof behind your assertion that women are the target of violence less than men. Particularly from a study that didn't consider gang violence, because generally predators(talking about human criminals here) go after those they believe to be weak. Women being very high on that list. That's why managers fear that stores are robbed less often with a single male employee on staff than if there is a single female employee on staff. That's why convenience stores will try to schedule men for the closing shifts, even if they won't say that's the reason.
Again, I never said that. I never once said I didn't take violence against myself seriously. I do, but only if it's serious violence. I mean really, did you even read my post?
To summarize, stop putting words in my mouth, and violence should be examined by how severe the violent act is, not by who the victim is.
Simple fact is, regrettably simple. There is no true equality. We've come far, very far, though men and women still aren't on the same playing field.
Much like how women will more often then not get the child in custody, people are more predisposed to giving the woman, the "fairer sex", the "weaker sex", the yin (or is it yang?), the benefit of the doubt, or their unjustified automatic belief.
Not to say that all women are given this, just in a lot of scenarios.
Men are in turn, given more power in terms of position, status, money, and the ability to date many women without being called a slut, the way a woman would (although with the younger generations of today, that's starting to fade).
Things may stay this way for a wile, since progression these days, in this particular field, is very slow now.
Much like how women will more often then not get the child in custody, people are more predisposed to giving the woman, the "fairer sex", the "weaker sex", the yin (or is it yang?), the benefit of the doubt, or their unjustified automatic belief.
Not to say that all women are given this, just in a lot of scenarios.
Men are in turn, given more power in terms of position, status, money, and the ability to date many women without being called a slut, the way a woman would (although with the younger generations of today, that's starting to fade).
Things may stay this way for a wile, since progression these days, in this particular field, is very slow now.