Utopia Talk / General Talk / Feminists

Palem Person.	Wed Jun 18 18:53:24 They seriously need to fuck off. I say that both figuratively and literally.
Marlboro man Member	Wed Jun 18 20:23:09 Noted.
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Jun 18 21:49:18 Don't hate! :p You probably mean "Feminism 101" feminists, who claim liberated awareness to disguise their own misandry, ignorance, and/or stupidity. If so, you'd probably see them posting on jezebel/Facebook and using intro, substitute-for-real-social-awareness words like "heteronormativity," "Bechdel Test," "white privilege," and of course, "the patriarchy." Use of these words themselves isn't the problem, but the mistaken assumption that users make is that repetition without understanding will create empowerment, when really it enslaves people to the new ideology (imagining a new enemy). But! At the same time, ignorant feminists still make up their own group of useful idiots, because while they may be misguided on the individual level, on the cultural level they march "progress" forward for the masses who have been left even further behind than themselves — stupid people leading the even stupider forward, culturally. So! They may be culturally stupid, but the simple messages of feminism that they distorted for their hate should still be reasonable..
Kaylana Moderator	Wed Jun 18 22:12:52 I'm more curious as to what inspired the comment. Such a tease.
Palem Person.	Wed Jun 18 22:47:52 Behind around feminists makes me hate women far more than any other social conditioning ever would. Don't get me wrong, equal rights, great. Equal respect, wonderful. Maybe not so many college rapes, yea I'll get behind that. Complaining that the mom in How to Train Your Dragon 2 wasn't important enough....fuck yourself with a broken bottle until you die from bleeding out, you worthless sack of a whore. http://the...trong-female-characters-to-tr/ After reading that sack of a horse shit, I sincerely hope Tasha Robinson received a paycheck less a man would have earned, returned home, was forced to do all of the housework and then was beaten and raped by her husband. At least then she might actually take the time to complain about an actual feminist issue and not the fact that Magic Mike 2 hasn't been released yet.
Palem Person.	Wed Jun 18 22:48:31 Behind around feminists = Being around feminists
Palem Person.	Wed Jun 18 22:49:55 Less than* a man I'm choking on my own rage here lol
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Jun 18 23:06:09 lol.. yep.. there's "Bechdel Test" :D *keeps reading*
McKobb Member	Wed Jun 18 23:08:09 And Amazon keeps wanting me to rate my purchase. Rate my purchase! Fuck!
Marlboro man Member	Wed Jun 18 23:22:12 I just glanced through it, whatever. Doesn't seem like anything to get angry over.
McKobb Member	Wed Jun 18 23:33:14 Bechdel Test? Seems more like the Dykel test. If the movie has two women that talk about a woman that's just dandy! Shouldn't it be two women that don't talk about relationships? Well that's never gonna happen :P
Hood Member	Wed Jun 18 23:53:40 The problem I've always had with this type of shit is that feminists are just as misogynistic as what they are trying to put an end to. The point of feminism is equality for women, yes? It isn't to raise women up on a pedestal. It isn't to give them extra benefits. It's to treat them equally; to make gender not a factor. I have not yet witnessed a feminist attempt to make gender a non-factor. I see them plug women all the time, though, trampling all over their "equality" bullshit. This applies to just about everyone looking for equality. It isn't about equality, it's about them wanting to be special, about getting positive attention for what they are instead of negative attention.
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Jun 18 23:58:11 ..one mistake she made was with this misconceived idea that to be a strong woman doesn't mesh with having a relationship with a man (and "oh no! — never with a movie main character!"). Like having relationships automatically removes you from power.. ( it can make some people boring though! ;D ) That connects with problems citing the Bechdel Test — its final stipulation says that a movie can't claim feminist equality (or whatever else term users wish to imply) if two women don't speak to each about something other than men. But.. think simply about that: men constitute half Earth's human population, and people concern themselves with people-to-people issues. So.. movie women shouldn't talk about half the world's population? Obviously an objective of using the Bechdel test would be to show portrayal differences, but problems come when people employ it in checklist fashion instead of actually interpreting movie portrayals through context and on-screen evidence (because that takes too much effort?) Like how she cites Dahl from Riddick; she misinterpreted that movie's sexuality messages, namely because she put "shower scene" in a checklist and decontextualized the fact that that scene was used to show a split between Riddick's perceptions and the common male perceptions which were aligned to the bounty hunters. Specifically, while the camera was "distracted" with Dahl, Riddick was taking items strategically — unaffected by the nude scene. The camerawork was showing that this primary gaze was flawed — viewers were not seeing with the "right" perceptions if they were objectifying Dahl. And Dahl does -not- "[decide] at the end that she would like to be his sexual object." That's another cop-out that goes back to the above flawed reasoning of the permanently celibate feminist "ideal"... *reads moars*
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Jun 19 00:06:38 I agree with her about Star Trek and Pacific Rim, though. ..glad she at least saw that Edge of Tomorrow was done really well. That movie was all about Cruise and Blunt's shifting back and forth in the power spotlight. So yeah, overall this actually wasn't so bad, Palem :p
McKobb Member	Thu Jun 19 00:36:38 Why would anyone go through a 8 points of light checklist to see if their female characters are strong enough to satisfy feminists?
Palem Person.	Thu Jun 19 00:50:51 I hope bad things befall you now CC. At least for tonight. I'm going to say this really slowly. They're. Fucking. Movies. If things have gotten so damn peachy for women that feminists need to complain that women aren't getting important enough roles in nerdy action movies designed to give teenaged to middle-aged men nerd boners, then you've got no "real" problems left. Fuck the teenage girls in Africa getting their genitals mutilated. Fuck rape. Fuck domestic abuse. Alice Eve chose to get paid millions of dollars to take her clothes off and we need to be mad that her writing wasn't sufficient! You know who else didn't really have sufficient writing and was really just a piece for the story to played out with? Every other fucking character in the movie that wasn't Kirk. Should we men be pissed that Sulu wasn't a viable independent character? Along with that, I'm pretty sure there's just as much male nudity as there is female nudity in the Star Trek reboots so it's not as though women are being purely exploited as just these sexual objects. That's as close to equal as you're ever going to get and there's absolutely no fucking reason to be angry about the fact that there wasn't a female hero along side of Captain Kirk. For fuck's sake people, honestly. If you want movies with female protagonists, they exist. Go watch them. Don't watch movies with male protagonists and then bitch and moan about how there isn't a female protagonist.
Billah Member	Thu Jun 19 01:28:08 *shrug* I have no problem with feminists.
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Jun 19 01:44:33 :p I should limit my agreement! I'm not saying that Alice Eve's role was some kind of apocalyptic destruction of equality, it was just very typical. In my review I wrote, "Also noticed Alice Eve from The Raven and MiB3. She’s had some luck with casting, but is balancing between being legitimate or another objectifiable sex symbol. This movie pushed her towards the second.." http://www...-darkness-2259-55-movie-review ..and that was part of a larger complaint against J.J. Abrams, who specializes in recycling fan service tropes
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Jun 19 01:44:48 And avoid the fallacy of relative privation! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation Just because Africa has problems doesn't mean people shouldn't fix their own. I would agree that people go too far sometimes ("first world problems"), but the reason people focus on movie portrayals might be that movies make up part of the cultural feedback system — movie scripts writing RL scripts and vice versa. It's rarely causative, so personally I'm not about to say that all children have blank slates that somehow carbon copy the movie portrayals they see; I like to keep it more like identification, where peeps want their own preferences to be represented. The issue is when it becomes a matter of entitlement. I'll complain about poor character work in a movie, but yes, like you say, other movies meet my niche interests. If pop culture ever meets my interests exactly, I will be very worried ;D
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Jun 19 01:45:08 So this author's problem is that she wants to write into the power structure of the pop culture industry (in this case the film industry's controlling of which demographics have representative power or which demographics get to be chosen for placation) — which becomes a null argument if she doesn't actually create any work herself: http://www...05e69291a1875bf8feb1069659.jpg That would be part of the "focus group" mentality, which, like Fahrenheit 451, destroys culture so that no one takes offense. Culture is competition, not agreement, and maybe her paid position at a culture blog has warped her sense of entitlement in that competition. She should try having a tumblr with 7 followers like me! ;D
Palem Person.	Thu Jun 19 09:04:19 You realize that she's not voicing a feminist issue right? She's voicing a Hollywood annoyance that there aren't strong woman movie characters that are important. It would be one thing if movies were like actively tearing down women in some noticeable way. Making an active statement that women are only really good "insert whatever here". But they aren't. All of the women that she's complaining about that didn't get the star treatment are being treated like just another character in their movie, male or female. That's precisely what equality is. Being treated like everyone else.
Kaylana Moderator	Thu Jun 19 09:44:54 Can't say I've disagreed with a single thing you've said, Palem. I'm not sure why people like this chick or crazy self-entitled extremists like Elliot Rodger has to make their anger focused on this misperception of a "Great Gender Divide." Whenever people talk about this massive chasm between genders, a scene from Robin Hood: Men in Tights plays on loop in my head of AhChoo leaping from one bank of this narrow creek to the other, telling Robin "this ain't exactly the Mississippi."
Hood Member	Thu Jun 19 12:01:20 "I'm on the east bank, I'm on the west bank!" Of course, Robin's next comment has a point. "It's the principle of the thing."
Cherub Cow Member	Fri Jun 20 00:36:59 "You realize that she's not voicing a feminist issue right?" Definitely! And that's actually somewhere that I disagree with typical politics when it comes to gender studies. One argument you'd hear would be something like, "pop culture representations of the sexes set norms of possible representations that consumers can take on themselves, so by showing weak female characters (subservient, motherly, etc.), people growing up under that portrayal will take on that identity (or similar ones), feeling cornered into a limited range of acceptable standards." For sociologists that could be terrifying, but individual reality doesn't agree, so lots and lots of problems with that argument. One would be that blank slate thing mentioned above (not everyone mimics representations without critical thinking (critical thinking, people!! :p ), even though many/some do). Another would be that people don't identify only along gender lines (male action heros can be liberating models for female viewers and vice versa), then there would be niche opportunities where people find the portrayals they like, etc. But usually the next argument would be against the Hollywood stranglehold ("culture industry"), where movie producers clearly have more power than others to control representations, and they limit the menu so that only certain movies make it into the consumer consciousness. I complain about this all the time, because pop movies water down strong themes for acceptability standards (common tropes for commoner consumption).. but in criticism of culture we see our own counter-identities — again, different from that ever-dangerous idea of identifying with weakness (typical buzzword here: "internalized oppression"). Blah, too much to say on the topic so a couple shorter thoughts: - Because placating emerging PC tastes does not constitute some kind of requirement for culture industries, consumers need to be willing to either create their own representations themselves or be activist with their money choices. This goes with the idea that you can't just dismantle the economic side of the film industry with idle complaints; you have to compete and "sell" your own culture. - Peeps like this author need to realize that individual characters do not have a 1:1 relationship with their wider demographic — "Valka" does not represent all white women. - Culture should not be written by focus groups, because that distorts reality, and a particular reality should be an allowable portrayal (like, maybe Valka relates to a person that her writer knew IRL, and that's just how she was..)
TheHighQueen Member	Mon Jun 23 11:21:04 Firstly, take it to UP! :P I personally don't consider a person who complains about a fictional character's representation in a movie (or lack there of) a feminist. The movie industry is a business, and therefore sells a product which is marketable. Strong female characters are becoming more marketable than in the past ex. Game of Thrones, but it will still be some time before female or other minority leads will be considered a norm and therefore profitable. For her to suggest that they be forced to include a specific scenario which she finds favorable would be a violation of that company's rights. I do however disagree with Hood's statement of, "This applies to just about everyone looking for equality. It isn't about equality, it's about them wanting to be special, about getting positive attention for what they are instead of negative attention." Although there are some people who will try to take advantage of the situation and demand more than what is equal, there are no facts to suggest that this is a majority view. As along as a person is qualified for the job/pay grade/military or political position ect. It is our job as a civilized and intelligent people to make these changes to our standard accordingly, and not let unfounded and archaic principles dictate our way of life. I do agree that unqualified individuals should not be afforded a free pass, nor should current standards be lessened to admit persons who would not otherwise make the cut. For instance the military should not lower the bar to admit women just because there are none. If they don't meet the current requirements, they don't get the job, plain and simple. ;) ;)
Hood Member	Mon Jun 23 11:33:39 "I do however disagree with Hood's statement .. here are no facts to suggest that this is a majority view." It is based on observation. As an example: Gay person gets angry because someone used gay in a sentence that had nothing to do with homosexuality. Or someone made an obvious joke about gay people with no malicious intent. This person becomes loud and obnoxious, claiming that "you shouldn't use gay as an insult" or "you shouldn't joke about that" because it might hurt people's feelings. However, this gay person makes jokes about other groups of people all the time and sees nothing wrong with that. It's cool to say nigger, but let's throw a shit fit every time someone says "that's gay" because their pizza was delivered cold. It obviously isn't about equality. The gay person does not want to be an equal, because being treated equally means that his/her sexuality is open season for jokes just like anything else is. We can make fun of jews, but we can't make fun of homosexuals. Perfect, equality, right? Don't get me wrong, if someone has a serious problem with homosexuals I will be the first to tell them how archaic and retarded they are. But using the "WE MUST BE EQUAL!" bullshit as ammunition because you can't handle casual conversation is bullshit. It isn't equality. It is insecure assholes wanting to be treated better than others because they have something "not normal" about them. Now use this argument against just about any word that describes minorities or could possibly hurt feelings. This includes gender related words that have gained non-gender definitions (like "nut up"). In fact, using those gender-based words on genders they wouldn't logically apply to is exactly what feminists are trying to do: remove gender. Me telling a girl to nut up isn't me saying she should be more manly and is terrible because she doesn't have balls. It's me telling a girl to act with poise and dignity in a way that is de-gendering the word or phrase.
TheHighQueen Member	Mon Jun 23 11:57:32 I am not disagreeing with your suggestion that people may try to take advantage of the situation, but rather that you think that "This applies to just about everyone looking for equality." That statement implies that the majority of individuals seeking equality act in this manor. If you can provide some factual information to back this up, I will agree (please note: factual information cannot include opinions, limited personal experiences or pie charts made in paint). I do have to say that I personally do not like phrases such as "that's gay" or "dude don't be such a twat". The reason for this is that it implies something negative about those particular minorities it references. When you are insulting a male by comparing him to a female, you are basically inferring that females are weak and inferior when compared to males. If this was not the case, it would not make a potent insult, in fact it would not be considered insulting at all. It is not a matter a "eliminating genders" but rather not defining a person by that gender. A female who enjoys lifting weights is not "manly" she is "strong". Strength is not a word that can only be attributed to males. ;) ;)
Hood Member	Mon Jun 23 13:08:13 "If you can provide some factual information to back this up" Did you not read "It is based on observation."? That statement makes it seem pretty obvious that I am basing it off of personal anecdotes. "When you are insulting (an)" anyone by comparing them to anything. That is the point of insults. They aren't meant to be nice. And, again, it is far different for me to use a word insultingly vs. thinking that all mexicans should be wiped off the face of the earth like the scourge they are. Insults are meant to injure. If we cannot use "you're a pussy" as an insult, but we can use "you don't have the balls," this is not equality. If I can use "you're stupid" but "you're retarded" is somehow blasphemous, this is not equality. By deeming certain words or phrases off limits, you are enforcing this inequality. If I cannot use "gay" because someone is going to be offended by it, then that person cannot expect me to treat them equally.
McKobb Member	Mon Jun 23 13:40:25 "female or other minority" You realize there are more women than men in the US, right?
TheHighQueen Member	Mon Jun 23 14:14:14 Hood, In my opinion a statement made with "observations" and not facts is not relevant. Just because an insult is intended to be negative does not make it acceptable. McKobb, In the context of this conversation you are thinking of the wrong type of minority. Please see the definition below: "A minority group is a sociological category within a demographic. Rather than a relational "social group", as the term would indicate, the term refers to a category that is differentiated and defined by the social majority, that is, those who hold the majority of positions of social power in a society. The differentiation can be based on one or more observable human characteristics, including, for example, ethnicity, race, gender, wealth, health or sexual orientation. Usage of the term is applied to various situations and civilizations within history, despite its popular mis-association with a numerical, statistical minority. In the social sciences, the term "minority" is used to refer to categories of persons who hold few positions of social power." ;) ;)
TheHighQueen Member	Mon Jun 23 14:17:48 I am not sure what happened there but, bam now you have to read it three times. :P ;) ;)
Kaylana Moderator	Mon Jun 23 15:42:02 If you hit "back" after submitting data, then subsequently "refresh" the page to see if there is a response, it will resubmit the data, resulting in a duplicate post.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Jun 23 16:14:53 if this was Game of Thrones the pretty girls would show their boobs... and possibly make out... ...hint hint
Hood Member	Mon Jun 23 16:33:24 "Hood, In my opinion a statement made with "observations" and not facts is not relevant." Then nothing said in this thread is relevant, as they are all opinion or observation. Not that facts are anything more than verified observations... "Just because an insult is intended to be negative does not make it acceptable." So, "insults are bad?" This is different from "only THESE specific insults are bad." I take issue with specific insults being singled out, such as your distaste for "twat" or "gay." There is no reason for these to be any better or worse than using fucker or bastard or idiot.
TheHighQueen Member	Mon Jun 23 17:38:22 Kay, Thanks for the tip and deletes. :) tumble, I completely agree, but I also think that means the men have to take of their shirts and fight to the death. .. hint hint! I can't handle waiting ten months for the next episode! Feel free to backhand someone with your gauntlet and spit in their general direction to speed up the process. Hood, If I were to say, "All male drivers are dangerous and need to barred operating any moving vehicle. I know this because every time I drive to work I see men driving cars in a reckless fashion and causing numerous accidents. Men also drink and do drugs more than women" In this case were I a male driver, I think I would prefer that facts were used to determine my future, not limited observations or personal feelings. "I take issue with specific insults being singled out, such as your distaste for "twat" or "gay." There is no reason for these to be any better or worse than using fucker or bastard or idiot." It is my belief that they are, depending on the insult. An example of this, "You are such an ass". This particular insult does not single out or demoralize a specific group of people, yet the negative tone is still present. ;) ;)
Palem Person.	Mon Jun 23 17:57:08 Erm... THQ "When you are insulting a male by comparing him to a female, you are basically inferring that females are weak and inferior when compared to males." Let me know when I run into an error here... -Men are stronger than women. -Being strong is better than being weak Now, if you're foolish enough to think that men and women are completely the game on every other level except for physical strength and therefor women must be inferior in general...then I can't help you, but that doesn't change the fact that those things are true, which makes for an accurate insult.
Palem Person.	Mon Jun 23 17:57:57 completely the same* I should really proofread lol
Hood Member	Mon Jun 23 18:06:58 "Hood, If I were to say, "All male drivers...etc" You can always take a stance and move it to an extreme. This does not change the argument, however. There are very few arguments in this thread that would qualify as "fact." To dismiss my arguments because they are based on observation is to dismiss yours as well. "It is my belief that they are" And so my assertion, that people who argue such things are looking to safeguard their specific group, receives a little more validation. It is the insults that deeply hurt you (the general you, any you who applies, not specifically THQ you) that are undesirable, but these other insults here are perfectly fine because I do not perceive any group that is offended by such insults.
TheHighQueen Member	Mon Jun 23 18:21:34 Palem, Are you suggesting that these insults are only in reference to physical strength? Let's examine: Example: Two male friends are working out at the gym, Friend A sees a hot chick working out a few feet away and expresses not having enough confidence to ask for her number. Friend B tells Friend A, "Stop being a pussy". In this situation Friend B is comparing Friend A to a female, believing that he lacks the mental or emotional strength to act on his desire. Fortunately physical strength does not determine over all superiority. For instance a panda bear is physically far stronger than a chimpanzees, but severely lacking in the intellectual department. If you are feeling hungry I can find you some bamboo shoots? :P ;) ;)
TheHighQueen Member	Mon Jun 23 19:20:17 Hood, "You can always take a stance and move it to an extreme." I agree with this statement, that was the point I was trying to make with you earlier regarding: "This applies to just about everyone looking for equality. It isn't about equality, it's about them wanting to be special, about getting positive attention for what they are instead of negative attention." You are using a few biased personal experiences to inaccurately accuse a large number people of attention seeking for personal or emotional gain. "There are very few arguments in this thread that would qualify as "fact." To dismiss my arguments because they are based on observation is to dismiss yours as well." I have made both statements based on fact and statements based on opinions. I would agree that the statements which I have made that are opinions, do not carry weight and can be dismissed until proven otherwise. "And so my assertion, that people who argue such things are looking to safeguard their specific group, receives a little more validation." These insults are inappropriate in reference to any group, not just those which I may belong to. Never at any time did I suggest otherwise. All in all, I think we just have to agree to disagree on this topic. :) ;) ;)
Hood Member	Mon Jun 23 19:30:20 "I think we just have to agree to disagree on this topic." Most likely. But I can enjoy the discourse nonetheless. "These insults are inappropriate in reference to any group, not just those which I may belong to." All insults are "inappropriate references". That is the point I am making. I simply do not value one reference above another. "You are using a few biased personal experiences to inaccurately accuse a large number people of attention seeking for personal or emotional gain." I have yet to see people who "champion" such topics (gay, women, etc.) argue anything to the contrary. Some may cast the net a little wider than others, but they all have lines to draw, specific insults that are ok and those that aren't. Perhaps CC might be evidence to the contrary, but I've never seen her arguments on the use of vocabulary as associated to her feminist ideals. Anyway, to your example for Palem: The main sex hormone for men is testosterone. Testosterone is associated with an assortment of physical and emotional changes, including the taking of risks. Men have more testosterone than women. Thus, a man is more likely to take a risk. They are more likely to be in an emotional state to act on their desire. It is the same principle as physical strength. If we're arguing straight facts.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jun 23 19:41:28 "Friend B tells Friend A, "Stop being a pussy". In this situation Friend B is comparing Friend A to a female, believing that he lacks the mental or emotional strength to act on his desire." This should be refined, because it does not take into account detached gender politics, which I think that Hood was trying to explain. Basically, a person -could- use the word "pussy" to denigrate a male by comparing that male to a perceived state of "female" in some kind of misogyny, but this would not necessarily be the case. Gender being performance, the word "pussy" can be detached entirely from sexual politics (that is, the full phrase does not necessarily mean "don't be a female"). A guise of weakness can be coded "feminine" without being coded "female" in the same way that a guise of strength can be coded "masculine" without being coded "male." Words like "pussy" and "balls" have been culturally separated from physical anatomy in many contexts, so that "don't be a pussy" means "don't perform a 'feminine' guise in this situation" — -not- to not behave like a female, because behavior would be synonymous with performance, not synonymous with an inseparable physicality. That meaning: one cannot even "behave like a female," because "female behavior" actually refers to gendered performance behavior, which exists separately from physical sex. This connects with "gay" in the derogatory. Campaigns against the word will fail not because prejudice overrules the offense people take against the word, but because the word "gay" can be (and has been) decontextualized from homosexuality. Words can take on lives outside of political connotation such that attempts to regulate them for pseudo-equality will fail. Some words have more difficulty than others (the "n-word," for one), but the same applies to them; they can and do exist outside of their politicized connotations. In that idea comes the need for contextuality to stem ideological laziness. Much like the warnings of Fahrenheit 451, people can group together in committee and decide to ban words or materials, but this groupthink comes with a lack of critical thinking — a lack of the ability to contextualize a word with its user and its situation. Language was meant for flexibility, not regimentation, and short of another William the Conqueror imposition, that will be why "inappropriate" and "unacceptable" labeling of words will only succeed in homogenized cultural zones where groupthink rules.
TheHighQueen Member	Mon Jun 23 19:43:59 I still disagree, but I am kind of bored of beating the dead horse honestly, nothing personal. :) If nothing else I think this thread has the most consecutive posts this board has seen in a long time. ;) ;)
TheHighQueen Member	Mon Jun 23 19:45:25 My last post was meant for Hood btw, I am reading CC's dictionary real quick before I head out. :P ;) ;)
Palem Person.	Mon Jun 23 20:20:59 @THQ - In your example, it's a pretty normal expectation for men to approach women and usually not the other way around. These are basic social norms. The underlying causes of why he's not pursuing are irrelevant. Social norms aren't damaging or derogatory unless you think that what's usual is what's mandatory or some sort of guarantee. i.e. "My wife is only a baby making machine" or "This black guy is definitely going to mug me"
Damian DB Moderator	Mon Jun 23 22:25:21 I started to read this thread, but then I fell asleep because it's long. anyone have the cliff notes for people with poor attention spans?
Palem Person.	Mon Jun 23 23:15:01 Bitches be crazy
TheHighQueen Member	Mon Jun 23 23:21:23 Good to see you Damian! Palem/OP - Is mad about some woman being mad about perceived gender inequality in a children's movie. CC - Wrote a few informative encyclopedias and a dictionary. McKobb - Is tired of being harassed by Amazon.com MM - Doesn't care. Kaylana - Agrees with OP's original pov. Hood - Thinks that most equality activists don't want equality, they want special treatment. THQ - Disagrees with Hood. tumbleweed - Likes Game of Thrones and boobs. Damian DB - Has ADHDEFGHIJK. I give this thread a solid 3.5 star rating. ;) ;)
Damian DB Moderator	Tue Jun 24 06:36:16 Thanks, that helps a lot, would use this cliff notes writer again.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Jun 24 08:24:03 i think my platform would win the popular vote
HH Evenflow Moderator	Tue Jun 24 23:40:16 Ya know, you'd all feel a whole lot better if you'd just take a coupla Midol.
HH Psycho Guy Moderator	Tue Jul 01 21:41:44 I like pudding.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue Jul 01 23:03:35 Finds the review of the above cliff notes writer helpful. Would recommend this reviewer of cliff notes writers to a friend.
TheGrimReaper Member	Tue Jul 01 23:52:52 You're all in the minority! Bloody living people.
Beer Baron DB Member	Wed Jul 02 04:15:24 What the hell would people complain and whine about if everybody was reasonable and considered everyone else equal and due their own beliefs?
Hh psycho guy Moderator	Wed Jul 02 04:58:19 Michael Bay.
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Jul 02 13:57:53 I'd be pretty worried! "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Marky Mark Twain http://i.imgur.com/IKzIWMB.jpg
pillz Member	Wed Jul 02 14:07:12 I didn't read this thread, because I know it's filled with bullshit about sjws. There is no need to actually have a discussion about this. Everyone can agree that they are useless, sub-niggers, who need to be eradicated immediately.
Marlboro man Member	Wed Jul 02 14:13:33 So get to work then.
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Jul 03 13:09:05 here pillz, you'd better have this: http://i.imgur.com/1EV0E2j.gif
pillz Member	Thu Jul 03 16:54:45 If you guys want femenist lawls today, check out #firerickremender. He made a 14 yo character, time-wrapped her to her mid-twenties, and then she had a one night stand. Now everybody is yelling rape and pedophilia.
pillz Member	Thu Jul 03 16:55:05 And by everybody I mean feminists and sjws
pillz Member	Thu Jul 03 16:57:52 Its a character that is literally like 20 issues old, too. Marvels former EiC, Joe Queasada turned a 15 year old girl from X-Men Evolution (the cartoon) into a child prostitute who cut people as a kink/specialty, complete with abusive pimp.
pillz Member	Thu Jul 03 17:00:55 Ms. Marvel (currently Captain Marvel) left the Avengers for a while to join the X-Men. Know why? Her son from the future came back in time to kidnap and rape her so he could be birthed. Those are examples of terrible stories making use of actual rape/sexual abuse, but they're going to go ape shit for a one-night-stand?
HH Psycho Guy Moderator	Thu Jul 03 18:03:15 Killgrave the Purple Man is the overlord of rapey storylines.
Palem Person.	Sun Jul 13 22:28:04 Even more feminist bullshit is clogging my facebook. A friend of mine commented on it and it showed up on my facebook, so I decided I was going to comment too... The lady shared this collection of anti-feminist photos: http://www...aggregation_id=288381481237582 and said the following: "YES! To quote Erica Day "These images are deeply disturbing and reflect a complete misunderstanding of the feminist movement and the state of women in the world today. Feminism was founded on the belief that women should have equal opportunities and rights as men. Simple as that. This includes the right to control our own bodies, something that is constantly being threatened in the US with new anti-abortion laws. If you don't think there's currently a war being waged against women's reproductive rights, consider Mississippi. http://rt.com/usa/154424-harshest-abortion-law-signed-mississippi/ If you don't think the system is rigged against us in America, consider the lack of women in politics, the lack of women in top CEO positions, the lack of flexibility for women with children in the workplace, and the fact that women still make, on average, 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes. Stating these facts does not mean I'm playing the "victim" role, it means that I'm stating the facts. Women have come a long way in this country, but it is imperative that we recognize how far we have yet to go. I am proud to call myself a feminist, and I'm sad to see these young ladies spouting the same old slut-shaming, victim-blaming, anti-women B.S. that has historically kept us down. "Feminism" is not a dirty word. Yes, there have been a few "man-hating" feminist extremists in history (i.e. Valerie Solanas, with her SCUM manifesto) but they don't represent the majority. Abigail Adams, Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman, Judy Chicago, Betty Friedan, Margaret Sanger, Gloria Steinem, Alice Walker, and Amy Poehler are just a few feminists who have made the world a better place. And for the record, you can still LOVE men and be a feminist. I do! ""
Palem Person.	Sun Jul 13 22:28:46 My reply: "Why hello random group of facebook people. Mind if I chime in? I do love a good discussion... While I don't condone so called "slut-shaming" and some of the other negative tones of the pictured ladies, I do believe a couple of them, not so eloquently, are hinting at the real problem surrounding feminism. Real, true feminism is aimed at achieving equality between the two genders. This goal, in all of it's realistic forms, has already been achieved. In any civilized, democratic society, there will always be rights struggles and that's all these so-called feminist issues really are anymore, but feminist groups try their hardest to somehow make it an attack on women. People that are pro-life don't hate women or think that a women's right to control their body aren't important. They just believe that a fetus' right to life simply outweighs that (this is not a view a hold btw). If this is a view you disagree with, that's great, but that's not an excuse to turn it into something it isn't. More so, the laws being passed/rejected ultimately come down to you the citizen. If your elected representative is passing laws you don't think should be passed, it's your duty as a citizen to elect someone who does share your beliefs. Throwing your hands in air and claiming the gov't and laws are out of your reach and that they're somehow attacking you isn't a mature reaction to a law supporting a belief counter to your own. A shining example of an appropriate reaction would be the reaction of the gay community when Prop 8 passed in California. It didn't turn into some massive "the world is out to get us" thing. It was a collective sigh and a "we'll get 'em next time" attitude. As far as job and wage statistics go, there are so many things skewing these details that makes them completely unreliable. For example, CEO positions are usually held by members of a company with not only the most knowledge of the field, but also the most experience. The average age of a person in this position is 56 years old. That means they came from a generation where women were truly being discriminated against and were not accepted in the world field. Of course there are a lot more male CEO's, it's the kind of thinking that the generation bred. What it isn't is an actual representation of of society's view of women. Now I'm not saying there doesn't exist instances in which women are treated with prejudice. There are, and I fully support those things being squashed like bugs. These kind of things are far and few between though compared to all of these "issues" that are modernly discussed. It's a topic very similar to racism. I'm not going to sit here and say that things like racism and sexism have been completely eradicated because they haven't been. There will always been nasty people who put people down for some irrelevant aspect. However, as a true social issue and a collective thinking, these topics have been dealt with as deftly as one can truly hope they will be. All of these current issues that modern feminists try to sway in the name of feminism simply comes off as a power move to earn extra rights in the name of past mistakes from past society. To me, it all boils down to this. I have a 10 year old niece. One day she says she wants to be a fashion designer, the next day she says she wants to be a veterinarian. She sees a boundless world ahead of her with nothing standing in her way. While the real world might not be everything she thinks it is, she is more or less right. The only thing standing between her and everything she hopes to accomplish in the future is her. That's equality. I'm sorry it's not the utopia you were you looking for, but it's the reality of the world around you."
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 14 01:56:41 Okay.. I was avoiding work so this got long. For tldr: social disputes still have plenty of relevance, but [patriarchy ≠ economics]... -=-=- actually a pretty fair response.. .. appreciate your 'economic past' argument for CEOs. A current lack of focus-group demographics in all jobs does not necessarily illustrate a -current- bias; economic realities do not shift overnight to reflect new cultural norms. Those with wealth before still have wealth now, and unless there were a shortsighted wealth-redistribution model that divided up former wealthy-person gains to all those designated under new equality models✹ (which doesn't even happen successfully after revolutions, for many reasons), then it stays with individuals to participate in the system for change ("you must be the change you wish to see in the world"). And! Individuals need to be able to pursue whatever they want, not just pursue occupations for heady political purposes, because otherwise a new manipulation has taken place where a pseudo-group-identity begins to oppress its own perceived members to construct a new cultural identity. Short version: the demographic argument isn't a functional way to represent current "enemies" because those enemies may be more -economic- than social (an uphill fight against "old money" earned via patriarchal economic benefits, not a fight against current -cultural- patriarchy).. If that was too 'encyclopedic' ;p .. another way to say it: "old white men" (archetype 'enemies' of pop discourse) may have gotten rich from former patriarchal mechanisms (voting laws, dowry laws, representation, etc.), but their current power isn't from current -cultural- patriarchy (misogyny, male work culture, etc) but benefits of -basic- ("free for all") -economic- systems (like inheritance, investment, and capital mobility) which -sustain- the money made in old, economics-backed cultural systems. Economics really live at the heart of most social debates, because [Todd Akin "legitimate rape"]-types may show a cultural patriarchy that makes an easy case for pop reactions, but Akin became a U.S. Representative because he has money, not because of his sexism/dimwittedness. It has become easy to blur the two (patriarchy and money) because they have a storied partnership, but -if- we say that that partnership has become necessarily separated by equality laws, then the remainder statement would be that people with money simply have greater power to engineer the social.. ..This has a lot to do with my dislike for celebrities; they gain the power of money but not the mind for culture, but they still get to direct culture. This means that incorrect enemies identified by prominent voices get to distract populations. Topically, "patriarchy" becomes the distractor for intro-level feminists, but victory against oppression requires -economic- awareness when social awareness plateaus into the oppression of the "Politically Correct". ..I just realized that I'm making it sound like [money = voice], but I'm still just talking of the demographic argument.. ✹ Kind of relevant: "The Case for Reparations" http://www...e-case-for-reparations/361631/ Mostly just posting this for myself; I haven't read this all the way through yet, but it talks of how reparations could have an impact on U.S. racial/social injustices that have remained despite the -legal- 'destruction' of racism. An obvious problem with reparations would be that a paycheck doesn't undo cultural engineering (how well would reparations checks be spent by uninformed individuals?), but it shows a struggle to reconcile money's power over culture.
Palem Person.	Mon Jul 14 14:28:28 I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not...lol
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 14 15:18:25 I think I was but I was really tired when I wrote that and couldn't keep track of where I was going ;D
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 14 15:25:16 yeah, I was just expanding on your CEO paragraph :p
HH Psycho Guy Moderator	Tue Jul 15 05:43:15 It'd be weird to have the words "Legitimate Rape" following my name for the rest of my life.
Palem Person.	Tue Jul 15 11:51:25 Well she posted some long rant about male privilege and said I should read an article since apparently I was claiming to know what it's like to be a woman. I read the article and posted two very large comments discussing various things. I was shortly after blocked so I don't have access to her comment or the first part of my 2-part reply, but I've got the second part! lol The first part, in tldr form: Please don't call me a misogynist and accuse me of "mansplaining" for simply disagreeing with you. Social, economic, and legal changes take time to run their course. Women's rights are currently moving the right direction and that's a result of society viewing you as equals. Claiming society doesn't view you as equals because of these aspects is backwards. Big shpeal about rape. Rape numbers are blown out of proportion because of what is defined as rape. Even with large rape numbers, rapes themselves, nor are the negative social consequences girls experience after a rape, a consequence of male privilege.
Palem Person.	Tue Jul 15 11:54:51 Second part: The other topics of the article follow a similar suit. Unfortunate aspects of society where the bad eggs are highlighted and responsibility is given to "male privilege." Apparently no man has ever had to walk into an abortion clinic with their loved one and be harassed by pro-life protesters (this according to the article). One quote that really got my goat was this one; "Because in our society, there is a common belief that men ought to have the ability, the privilege to yell these things to women as if they were public property." I call, from the tallest of mountains, complete and utter shenanigans on that statement and every statement in the article similar to it. Our society consists of 51% women, none of who believe that giant load of crap, and of the 49% males that populate our society, the overwhelming vast majority do not view women as "things" with no/limited rights. The only people that believe these things are the douchebags that behave in that manner. The rest of the article covers some other stuff you said your response that I wanted to get back to, namely, social perception and expectations. I sympathize with ladies on these fronts, but these are not challenges that women face exclusively, which again makes it a non-feminist issue. Yes, the "working mother" judgements are harsh, but they're just as harsh of judgements that the stay-at-home father receives when people call him a bum and say he just plays with the kids all day. Women have self-esteem issues generated by society? Well so do men. We don't all look like Channing Tatum. Sexy but not sexual? Well believe it or not, but getting around may not carry the "awesome" reputation that everyone wants to try to pretend it does. Now, if we're going to shine a spotlight on "male privilege" let's not pretend that "female privilege" isn't a thing as well. This is where my claim that feminists are just reaching for extra rights comes from, because I've yet to hear of any feminist movements to give up these privileges or equalize them back to men. College attendance is currently dominated by females and not because females are suddenly smarter or more hardworking, just colleges want more woman than males because it makes their statistics look better. If it comes down to Brett vs Pallavi for the final acceptance spot, with the same grades and same scores, ect, I'm screwed. Feminists claim to what sexual equality, but where's the outcry that you're being favored for college admission? Why is there no outcry that women are outlandishly more likely to win a custody case even if the mother is by all means a worse fit for parenting than a father? At the age of 18, I was forced to sign up for selective services if I wanted any kind of help from the government as far as paying for school, women are not subject to such burdens, which might not seem like a big deal, but if a war did actually happen to break out where a draft was necessary, I would actually be subject to be ripped away from my job, family, and friends and thrust into a war that I'm really likely to be killed in, all because I wanted to attend college. It's not as though it's all sunshine and rainbows being a man and ultimately that was the point I was trying to make. See, if you check my first comment, I never said males and females are equal now and all effort to make them such should stop. To make myself clear, and avoid any misunderstandings, I'll say precisely what I had been trying to say for quite a few characters now. Men and women are different. Not in any sort of "value" quality where men are better than women, or women are better than men. We're simply two different beings that have various needs and exceptions from ourselves and from the society around us. Social understandings and expectations of each gender are ever-changing and there's always going to be a power struggle between the two of us, and that's ok. That's all the feminist movement is though, an attempt at grabbing back some power and that's even something the supplied article admits to here: "In sum, feminism seeks not only to empower women, but to make women powerful." The clash here between us seems to sum up to the following, at least as I see it. You want to take the hard stance that men and women should not been seen as different, at least socially, while I'm taking the stance that being seen as different is fine, as long as being seen as different does not mean being seen as somehow worse.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 15 18:44:51 ..can't really respond too well without her post(s), but blocking you was a shallow decision; ending conversation like that prevents both sides from learning.. I also don't agree with many "privilege" debates (use of "white [racial] privilege," "sex privilege," etc.), because besides being poor debates from a simple 'ad hominem' perspective (when people drown the debate by accusing others of speaking from privilege), they again attempt to place (or even "privilege", ironically) social generalities in more important positions than more affecting factors — again, like economics. A person with economic "privilege" may be more deluded than one with race or sex "privilege." ..An issue with a lot of intro-feminism vocabulary ("privilege," "gaze," etc.) comes from its birth at university, where intro-people make assumptions of their own [guilty] wealth. So affluent/rich people write these scripts from a narrow understanding that makes too many "all other things being equal" assumptions (and all things may -not- be equal), but their worldview rarely grows beyond their economic shelter.. -=-= but.. some of your language seems to be forgetting daily realities.. " Our society consists of 51% women, none of who believe that giant load of crap, and of the 49% males that populate our society, the overwhelming vast majority do not view women as "things" with no/limited rights. " I'd like to believe statements like this — or I at least would like not to interact with people in RL with any pre-formed assumptions otherwise — but "none of" and "vast majority" can't be backed by anything but partisan statistics and generalized perceptions (not reliable). That doesn't have a control for daily life where it may not be a matter of "rights" but where objectification -does- exist. There can definitely be a line where I wouldn't expect people to all be desexualized and pretend not notice that others happen to be attractive, but women have to put up with some stupid expectations and have to balance common interactions with logic like, "if I'm too nice, this person will think I want a relationship, if I'm mean they might call me a bitch or even get mad and kill me." {That part might sound like I'm accidentally using my own generalized perceptions while making a point about generalized perceptions being bad, but my intention was that generalized statements shouldn't gloss over case realities} ..Actually, even though I don't like Jessica Williams' politics, she had a topical rant on Daily Show recently: http://the...2b627/the-fault-in-our-schools But I'd also like to be realistic, and I know that pop culture hurts both sides (there was a poorly produced 90s documentary called "Tough Guise" that went into this): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3exzMPT4nGI So my point would just be, ..and this connects to..: " That's all the feminist movement is though " You should be careful not to label the entire feminist movement! Use those qualifiers :p (like "the misandry wings of the feminist movement" or something) Because even though there may be an economic enemy that has more power than social issues, feminism still has a big role, it's just that it happens to be a shared role because culture affects both sexes in debilitating ways. That's probably why you'll get a lot of backlash for saying seemingly tame things like, "That's equality" (maybe also too similar to that Fox News "racism has ended" line). But hopefully that doesn't sound like I'm saying that people trying to use a group politics to grab power with poor ideology shouldn't be checked.. People will try to use -any- system against itself for their own ends if they happen to meet entry qualifications, so support from within shouldn't be blind. Personally I like a variation of "individualist feminism" (don't read the wiki page, it only talks of a conservative variation), because ideologically it puts individuals first (avoids groupthink) but also recognizes that there still exist plenty of sociological level issues that require situational unities..
Hood Member	Tue Jul 15 19:02:33 "but women have to put up with some stupid expectations" Yeah. Guys are fucking retarded assholes. But so are women. They just don't publicize it like men do. I actually have an excellent anecdote for this. Female friend of mine works at a vet hospital that got new interns. One of them was (her words) the "sexy intern" and she dreamed about possibly having to end her dry spell cause a girl gots needs. Now she didn't go up to the guy and hit on him, but that's my point. Women keep these things more private than guys do. A week or 2 later, the guy decided he needed to be a man and implied that my friend was too weak to lift a dog. She was not happy at the insinuation. Now, obviously this guy was just "being chivalrous" and offering to help her (and hitting on her). But he was public about it. A second one, albeit very brief: I was walking down the hallway back in high school when I heard the daughter of a family friend ask one of her lady friends if "she was going to fuck [her bf]". The context of the conversation made it very clear that the couple had just started dating. So as someone who often views people as objects, neither gender has a leg to stand on. We both do it. Men just get a more insidious rep for it because we are more public about it. Probably because it is normal for the man to make the first move and thus we have to be the instigator. Plus we're assholes.
Palem Person.	Tue Jul 15 19:05:40 I'm going to ask two questions, for real world statistics. 1. Where do you live CC? 2. What is the absolute worst amount of catcalling you would estimate a woman to have to deal with? Not on average, but like ceiling level for 1 day. Anyway, yea, lame move blocking me. All things considered, even if I was being some sort of "under the cover" rude (which I wasn't), she was being much ruder to me. If I had wanted to be rude and get personal, I would have told her that she has no room to talk to me about privilege being a Indian Woman who went Yale. I thought that was a pretty funny move, going to the privilege stuff though. I could tell she was running out of material to regurgitate back at me lol. And no, I won't be careful generalizing the feminist movement, because I am correct. The whole movement is intended to get women more power. I'm not saying anything towards the goals, or aims, or anything like that.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 15 21:11:15 [Hood]: "...people as objects, neither gender has a leg to stand on. We both do it." I understand that and that's where I was going with, "There can definitely be a line where I wouldn't expect people to all be desexualized and pretend not [to] notice that others happen to be attractive..." ..But things like "expectations" make objectification more than just a type of attraction. Objectification itself just stands for a mental heuristic where people can use shortcuts to have initial understanding (in context here: "I don't know this person intellectually/personally, but I find this person physically attractive") — and defs, everyone does it to some level — but when that objectification makes demands or that heuristic doesn't allow the "object" to develop, then the objectifying person can become harmful.. like the extreme would be that Elliot Rodger shooter — he thought that he was somehow owed something just for having a libido. Or maybe Yolanda Saldívar or other celebrity-obsessed autists/delusionals, who expect a relationship but without seeming to realize that the strength of their wishes do not stand in for the wishes of those they desire.. -=- [Palem]: "I'm going to ask two questions, for real world statistics..." Again, my meaning wasn't that the floor should open for relative privation arguments ("which population has worse problems?"), it's that diminishing a set of problems doesn't solve them — individual problems should be recognized on ideologically consistent terms. In my example, it wasn't limited to construction worker catcalling but was a set of social situations that make up part of everyday interactions for individuals. Many men deal with the same things in different contexts, like being expected to be stoic or unemotional (again have to refer to that "Tough Guise" video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3exzMPT4nGI .. problems like this don't necessarily have to be -statistically- significant, they just have to be recognized for being problems for individuals — not weighed on a scale that determines whether they may be worth addressing. Their negative results don't just symbolize some uncommon inconvenience; they can create cognitive crutches that people have to consult before acting, or intensely uncomfortable situations that force performance behaviors (like maybe, "I guess I have to dress like this"), or any number of issues .. [Palem]: "And no, I won't be careful generalizing the feminist movement, because I am correct. The whole movement is intended to get women more power." There doesn't even -exist- a "whole movement" of feminism, because even with today's internet connectivity there exists no centralized feminist collective, no international coalition, no universal, ideological agreement. At the very most you may be seeing individuals piggybacking on popular groupthink ideologies to gain personal power despite their own hidden prejudice or failings, but no condensed center speaks for women anymore than any one person speaks for men, so speaking in terms like that just doesn't function except against those same piggybackers that buy into the groupthink — those that made themselves vulnerable to the illusion of a shared group ideology. And I would agree with "get women more power" if you mean that portions of feminism find that women do not share equal power with men by many metrics, in which case the goal should be to gain power until the scales become equal. I would also agree if you recognize that -some- people have attempted to re-purpose feminism to cause not just equal power but a reversal of power (unspoken "affirmative action"). And I would also agree that -if- feminism has achieved equality, the next step should be unaffiliated individuals gaining power by their own means in non-politically-enabled free market ("You have all the weapons you need. Now fight!"), but like you mentioned, there still "exist instances in which women are treated with prejudice." Those issues may be 'less crucial' than suffrage, but where the old guard still has money from their former economic advantages, those residual misogynies still have something to them and shouldn't be cast away because of misguided, affluent collegiates with Facebook soapboxes.
Palem Person.	Wed Jul 16 10:18:27 That wasn't the direction I was going. Let's take an outrageously attractive woman in NYC. Now I would assume getting catcalled like 20 times in a day would be pretty outrageous (and please correct me if I'm wrong) Now, how many men live in NYC? I can't find any census stuff that designates gender splits, so I'm just going to assume the average 51% female. That puts us at 4118860 men. Out of those men, how many would be within earshot of this woman to shout things at her? I'll be generous and just go with 5%, so that's 205943 people. So we had 20 people who choose to be rude and 205943 who didn't. .0097%. So yes, no matter the demographics, I'm totally comfortable saying that the overwhelming majority of men do not catcall and do other various stupid shit that objectifies women in public.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Jul 16 10:34:17 there are a lot of words in this thread
Palem Person.	Wed Jul 16 12:25:07 There's even more letters! Thanks a lot Obama...who I might add is a man.
McKobb Member	Wed Jul 16 12:29:28 What's the problem here? Woman can do anything they want except be president.
Palem Person.	Wed Jul 16 12:30:55 or a penis model
McKobb Member	Wed Jul 16 12:32:32 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA like a cheap lighter, baby!
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Jul 16 13:28:03 she's saying a lot of words
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Jul 16 13:33:10 and she has many other videos talking for 20-30 mins each... i don't know if i've talked for a combined 30 mins this year
McKobb Member	Wed Jul 16 13:33:54 Not with wordstuff, with sonic.
Palem Person.	Wed Jul 16 18:54:12 I'm honestly considering removing every female from my facebook. One god damn day without this bullshit is all I'm asking for. One god damn day. http://eve...cebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Hood Member	Wed Jul 16 19:03:42 I cannot use "bitch" or "crazy" because some woman might think I'm being sexist? Talk about fucking ego.
Damian DB Moderator	Wed Jul 16 19:34:20 more long posts.. more long posts.. several short posts.. someone catch me up?
Palem Person.	Wed Jul 16 19:41:38 tldr: see first post
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Jul 16 23:39:56 "That wasn't the direction I was going." ..but there it was again :/ It's not a matter of quantities or percentages. It's a matter of giving validity/credibility to individual situations. Being told something like, "it's only a marginal statistic," doesn't reconcile singular situations that carry cultural underpinnings. Perceived sociological or legal victories do not change the need to be able to address cultural malfunctions, which can still manifest themselves at individual levels. ... Review for you, Damian :p - someone on Palem's Facebook wasn't happy that empowered but "anti-feminism" women weren't up to speed on discourse - we went to candy mountain - Charlie lost a kidney
earthpig GTFO HOer	Thu Jul 17 02:10:11 I will stop taking up more space on public transit when more space is made available to me on said transit by cutting into the space made available to goddamn dwarfettes.
McKobb Member	Thu Jul 17 02:12:23 Crazy bitches be hysterical!
earthpig GTFO HOer	Thu Jul 17 02:20:47 Space on public transit makes me hysterical, too!
McKobb Member	Thu Jul 17 02:25:39 I never minded BART. I've had a lot of good convoys with random peoples on it.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Thu Jul 17 04:16:56 "I never minded BART." Are you a dwarf male, or over 5ft10?
McKobb Member	Thu Jul 17 04:24:19 Not a dwarf and over 5'10"
Damian DB Moderator	Thu Jul 17 06:20:01 thanks! reviews are helpful, still no interest in reading the entire thing
McKobb Member	Thu Jul 17 06:25:34 Bacon!
	show deleted posts