The "Family Values" trope.

[mduncan50]

Hell, men simply sitting without crushing their testicles between their thighs is seen as a problem to these people. Forcing people to crush their own genitals because their clothed crotch offends you, that's tyranny, that's oppression, that's what certain progressive people want.

I have literally never heard of this happening anywhere ever. Perhaps it has somewhere in some random place, but it is nowhere near as common as institutionalized sexism, sexual harassment, and rape, so if the consequences of getting rid of those things is that some guy in Buttfuck, Nowhere has slightly tender testes, then I'm okay with that trade.

On what are you basing that assessment? New york isn't "buttfuck, nowhere".

[image src="http://i.imgur.com/WqZeNd8.jpg"]

And how do anti-manspread campaigns prevent sexual harassment and rape?

It seems far more similar to the uncomfortableness of wearing corsets.

So you post a picture from San Francisco (the New York of the west coast?) asking men to make enough room so that they're not taking up more than one seat, and specifically saying "It's a space issue" and you personally equate that to sexual harassment and rape, and then ask why everyone else thinks it prevents sexual harassment and rape? I have literally never heard anyone say that it has anything to do with sexual harassment and rape, except for those poor oppressed men that are arguing that everyone else says that.

 

[Namehere]

Hell, men simply sitting without crushing their testicles between their thighs is seen as a problem to these people. Forcing people to crush their own genitals because their clothed crotch offends you, that's tyranny, that's oppression, that's what certain progressive people want.

I have literally never heard of this happening anywhere ever. Perhaps it has somewhere in some random place, but it is nowhere near as common as institutionalized sexism, sexual harassment, and rape, so if the consequences of getting rid of those things is that some guy in Buttfuck, Nowhere has slightly tender testes, then I'm okay with that trade.

On what are you basing that assessment? New york isn't "buttfuck, nowhere".

[image src="http://i.imgur.com/WqZeNd8.jpg"]

And how do anti-manspread campaigns prevent sexual harassment and rape?

It seems far more similar to the uncomfortableness of wearing corsets.

So you post a picture from San Francisco (the New York of the west coast?) asking men to make enough room so that they're not taking up more than one seat, and specifically saying "It's a space issue" and you personally equate that to sexual harassment and rape, and then ask why everyone else thinks it prevents sexual harassment and rape? I have literally never heard anyone say that it has anything to do with sexual harassment and rape, except for those poor oppressed men that are arguing that everyone else says that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manspreading

Here's an article on it from the NYT back in 2014: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/nyregion/MTA-targets-manspreading-on-new-york-city-subways.html?_r=0

It's fascinating that you should bring up the issue as one of subway etiquette. Many people did, which lead to questions like: "Why just manspreading and not women stacking seats with hand bags and other carry on luggage?" It was perceived as being treated as a gender issue rather then that some people simply lack etiquette. This perception was not helped by people claiming that men who sit with their legs apart, even when there is space, are merely attempting to oppress the women on the same car who can see it, as if sitting that way was somehow a painfully obvious stance of power.

Strangely enough if you look at the NYT article on manspreading I posted for you... they claim the image Dunam posted was made for the MTA, New York's public transit authority, isn't it? So I don't know where your getting the idea that it's from San Francisco. Maybe San Francisco adopted the same poster?

 

[mduncan50]

I'll start by apologizing, you are right, the sign did originate in New York and get picked up on the west coast, so that was my bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manspreading

Here's an article on it from the NYT back in 2014: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/nyregion/MTA-targets-manspreading-on-new-york-city-subways.html?_r=0

It's fascinating that you should bring up the issue as one of subway etiquette. Many people did, which lead to questions like: "Why just manspreading and not women stacking seats with hand bags and other carry on luggage?" It was perceived as being treated as a gender issue rather then that some people simply lack etiquette. This perception was not helped by people claiming that men who sit with their legs apart, even when there is space, are merely attempting to oppress the women on the same car who can see it, as if sitting that way was somehow a painfully obvious stance of power.

You want to know why they're only targeting people (not just men) spreading their legs instead of also including people with purses and packages? They're not.

"As part of our strategic-plan goals, we are looking to do additional outreach regarding Muni etiquette," SFMTA spokesman Paul Rose said.

"Based on the survey results, outreach could include things like: not leaning on doors, asking passengers to move all the way and not stopping at the doorway, manspreading, not leaving large bags in aisles and on seats," and more, he said.

So they are looking at trying affect many different thoughtless activities that affect other riders, but since people need a reason to feel oppressed they will pick out the one thing that may describe themselves and claim discrimination.

Even the article you linked is misleading, as it is also just cherry picking one thing (using only one seat) and trying to turn it into something it is not to try to get more hits. The article itself admits that New York Transit has been running such "courtesy" ads for at least 70 years, like this one from the 50s (you can tell it's from the 50s because they're all white):

And you can't even say they're focusing on it more now, because the picture you showed is just one of at least 15 or so that I have been able to find with just a cursory search. Here's a few (now both red AND green people are represented):

 

[mduncan50]

Why would you say "I have literally never heard anyone say that is has anything to do with sexual harassment and rape"?

1. The person who I replied to in this thread equated it as such. You could have seen it in this thread. Ie: you.
2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11643966/Manspreading-New-York-arrest-I-was-groped-by-a-mans-legs-on-the-train.html
3. Why do you think that using disparaging terms about men is a good way to showcase that you're for gender equality?

1. If you would actually read the entire sentence rather than stopping halfway through, you would see that it ends with "...except for those poor oppressed men that are arguing that everyone else says that." So I did, in fact acknowledge that it was said in this thread.
2. If you actually read the article (is it just a reading issue?) you would see that she was talking about a specific instance where a man was making it obvious that he was trying to initiate physical contact for his own enjoyment, and that she was not saying that any man spreading his legs is "groping" her.
3. It's not a term that I have been using. It is honestly not a term I had heard about up until this thread started, and it is, quite frankly, very silly. It is also a term that seems (in the limited research I have done since) to be used mostly by men talking about being asked not to spread their legs, as opposed to being used by the people asking them not to spread their legs.

 

[mduncan50]

1. You're calling yourself a "poor oppressed man"? You brought it up as a manspreading being acceptable because it somehow fights sexual harassment and rape. How?
2. No need for condescension. Here it's brought up in relation to sexual harassment by a woman. You had never heard this before, as you said.
3. I assume you're for gender equality. Why would you use disparaging gendered terms like "poor oppressed men"? Doesn't seem very equality minded to me.

1. I never called myself anything, and I certainly never said a manspreading being acceptable because it somehow fights sexual harassment and rape. First off, that sentence makes no sense. Secondly I never said one caused the other or had anything to do with the other. The person I was responding to was the one that had compared the two as being equal forms of oppression.
2. If you can read that article and say that what that man was doing is acceptable and that you do it all the time, then maybe the hypothetical me that you invented is right, and there is a connection with sexual harassment, because that was very clearly what it was, not just some guy trying to sit comfortably.
3. I am not disparaging a gender, I am disparaging a small subset of that gender that is making up an oppression to make themselves feel like victims, when they have no idea what true oppression is. I would gladly make the same kind of disparaging remark about any such group regardless of race, creed, religion, or testicle having.

All that being said, I'm not going to keep responding to these. You've obviously made up your mind, so what's the point, and the poor guy didn't deserve having his post hijacked. Hugs to you all.

 

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

Hell, men simply sitting without crushing their testicles between their thighs is seen as a problem to these people. Forcing people to crush their own genitals because their clothed crotch offends you, that's tyranny, that's oppression, that's what certain progressive people want.

I have literally never heard of this happening anywhere ever. Perhaps it has somewhere in some random place, but it is nowhere near as common as institutionalized sexism, sexual harassment, and rape, so if the consequences of getting rid of those things is that some guy in Buttfuck, Nowhere has slightly tender testes, then I'm okay with that trade.

But why not do neither of these things? Why is it a trade? That's what i don't get. Forcing people to crush their testicles doesn't really help anybody, it doesn't do anything whatsoever to stop institutionalized sexism, sexual harassment and rape, so why do you act like it's a trade? Because it's not at all, and i have no clue at all how you came to that conclusion.

manspreading is bad because it is rude to the entire bus/metro you currently occupy at any time you do it. there is little enough space in those things during the rush hours without someone taking up two for the sake of their bollocks. i never do it because it is a dick move and speaking from experience "crushed testicles" do not occur as a result of it. it is one of the softest parts of the body located between some of its strongest and most frequently moving muscles. if it could take that little humanity would have died out from mass male infertility millenia ago

 

[Something Amyss]

To be fair, there were more diversity in Rita's forces. If anything, Power Rangers is a tale of the many varied peoples loyal to a justly angry person trying to claim a place of the paradise that is Earth, and humanity is greedily keeping it to themselves. Treated like literal garbage, locked away for 10,000 years in inhumane conditions, Rita is merely fighting a revolution against those responsible for such pain and hardship.

Huh. You know, I'd never thought of that in that way. It makes a lot of sense, though. What if she was put away for her differences? That's super sinister.

And the entire ensemble does hold a lot of appeal. I can't help but think the world would be more fun if people dressed like that normally. Of course by dint of that, you'd need something even funner to make an over-the-top villainous even ... funnerer?

Badass Repulsa-style magical wand is basically the answer to bringing back fashionable canes, I think.

I have the urge to say "now, watch my wardrobe grow!"

Yeah, but it still hurts to see such attitudes. Destroying civilization, indeed. Plenty of homeless kids ... in shelters, orphanages. All of them could use a good home. And given that so many of them are made homeless for being gay or trans, they could really use parents that understand that and be supportive.

No, agreed. In fairness, I tend to verbally downplay things a lot. Specifically because of my own experiences. My instinct is generally to downplay, dismiss or joke about some pretty horrible things. So the whole "gee, what a surprise" thing usually htis two or three of those marks.

Sorry state of affairs. Though I do maintain a sensible degree of hope. Frankly, I think a lot of it comes from heightened visibility. You get the growing visibility, it enters the common psyche, and the public vitriol grows, but so does the recognition of that hatred. It's no longer behind closed doors. The ugliness is there in full view. Even the average person are confronted with the knowledge that the garbage arguments of the past, like; "The break up of family values..." and recognise what they are for what they are.

Bigoted nonsense to protect a mythical quality that never existed.

Things are always improving. It just never seems like it's enough, so it's easy to be pessimistic.