Should women protect themselves from rape

[mikeymikec]

So men dying isn't a pressing issue?

More question dodging, and men dying has nothing to do with gender discrimination! You know the context of my question yet you've ignored it.

And of course you can sit there and laugh that there are perfectly rational explanations for everything I list.

You actually raised "life expectancy" in the context of what an equal rights organisation should be campaigning for, you said "college graduation rates" without any further justification for why that would be the result of gender descrimination, you ignored my counter-point with regard to divorce courts and the draft, and you failed to justify how "incarcaration rates" by gender are the result of gender discrimination.

Furthermore, I made a point here which you've completely avoided:

So a civil rights effort is worthless as long as there is a niche (no matter how small it is) that exists where the otherwise oppressed have the upper hand?

Instead you decided to try and quibble over the word "niche".

 

[nehalem256]

You need to ask this question, really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male–female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States

And to quote you: "Is this due to intentional discrimination?"

HINT: The answer is no.

50 fun facts about sexual harrassment in the US military:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/military-sexual-assault-facts_b_4281704.html

91% chance in the US that the person being raped is a woman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_States

Woman driven from her home for speaking out against gender inequality:
http://games.slashdot.org/story/14/...of-tropes-vs-women-driven-from-home-by-trolls

What do you suppose the chances are of a man being abused based on his gender online:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...tter-troll-who-called-her-a-slut-9695355.html

Actually that makes an interesting point

Data hasn’t been calculated under the new FBI definition yet, but Stemple parses several other national surveys in her new paper, “The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions,” co-written with Ilan Meyer and published in the April 17 edition of the American Journal of Public Health. One of those surveys is the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, for which the Centers for Disease Control invented a category of sexual violence called “being made to penetrate.” This definition includes victims who were forced to penetrate someone else with their own body parts, either by physical force or coercion, or when the victim was drunk or high or otherwise unable to consent. When those cases were taken into account, the rates of nonconsensual sexual contact basically equalized, with 1.270 million women and 1.267 million men claiming to be victims of sexual violence.

http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl..._reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html

although not the one you were intending to make. Men are so discriminated against that when they are sexually assaulted it doesn't even count.

A point that I think anyone would honestly find very difficult to deny - women who sleep with many men are a lot more likely to be regarded negatively (e.g. "slut", "slag", "village bike", etc) whereas men who have slept with many women are a lot more likely to be regarded positively (e.g. "stud", "experienced").

And on the other hand a woman who is a virgin is valued and a man who is a virgin is a loser.

Funny that I don't see you crying about that. Which kinda makes my original point.

Why do you suppose that the vast majority of modern pop music where the lyrics are about sex, that male singers are referring to how many women/sexual objects they've had and/or can get, and the female singers are talking about how great a sexual object they are? Does that sound like a culture where respect regardless of gender has been reached?

So men like having sex with women is evidence that there is gender inequality? :hmm:

Female actors are commonly asked questions which point towards women being eye candy, an amusing turn-around of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlW-aHC8KdI

More stupid, shallow questions for female actresses:
http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenand...lett-johansson-tired-of-sexist-diet-questions

Women aren't sexual objects, honest:

And who is it that reads about celebrities?

How many females in video games have been depicted as obvious sexual objects, compared to men?
http://kotaku.com/thirteen-types-of-ridiculous-female-armor-in-mmorpgs-507570131

I can continue researching, but someone who isn't totally and utterly blinkered from misogyny in modern society wouldn't need me to.

And male warriors never ever wear scanty armor to show off their body?

 

[Veliko]

Nehalem's capacity for retardation will outlast anyone's patience.

He's a lunatic.

 

[Moonbeam]

Let me just say that for a woman to be a mans equal in our patriarchal society she has to be twice as capable as the man she will replace. Fortunately that is easy for women.

There isn't any doubt in my mind that we would all be better off if motherhood was requirement for every political position world wide.

 

[nehalem256]

More question dodging, and men dying has nothing to do with gender discrimination! You know the context of my question yet you've ignored it.

You actually raised "life expectancy" in the context of what an equal rights organisation should be campaigning for, you said "college graduation rates" without any further justification for why that would be the result of gender descrimination, you ignored my counter-point with regard to divorce courts and the draft, and you failed to justify how "incarcaration rates" by gender are the result of gender discrimination.

Furthermore, I made a point here which you've completely avoided:


Instead you decided to try and quibble over the word "niche".

You mean exactly like how you did with gender wage gap?

Which is due to differing choices men and women make. Not discrimination?

I'm going to be arguing at a disadvantage on this one as the US is very different to the UK (as I understand it), but I think it's a fair assumption that both have reached this list due to men's preconceptions of gender roles which mostly work against women, e.g. "women are supposed to be home makers" and "the front line is no place for a woman".

Okay going back to this. Whether traditional gender roles benefit men or women is a matter of opinion. Is it better to have a small chance of being a CEO or not die.

 

[Texashiker]

Let me just say that for a woman to be a mans equal in our patriarchal society she has to be twice as capable as the man she will replace. Fortunately that is easy for women.

There isn't any doubt in my mind that we would all be better off if motherhood was requirement for every political position world wide.

Moonbeam, shoo, go away. You probably throw up everytime you try to talk to a woman. A blow up doll does not count as a real girlfriend.

If women are twice as capable, why do they only make up 4% or 5% of the workforce in construction, drilling, oil field, mining,,,, etc?

 

[nehalem256]

Let me just say that for a woman to be a mans equal in our patriarchal society she has to be twice as capable as the man she will replace. Fortunately that is easy for women.

There isn't any doubt in my mind that we would all be better off if motherhood was requirement for every political position world wide.

This is pretty much what feminists believe. Thanks for your honesty Moonbeam :thumbsup:

 

[Exophase]

Let me just say that for a woman to be a mans equal in our patriarchal society she has to be twice as capable as the man she will replace. Fortunately that is easy for women.

There isn't any doubt in my mind that we would all be better off if motherhood was requirement for every political position world wide.

Sorry but no, claiming that it's easy for a woman to be twice as capable as a man is wrong and sexist.

 

[mikeymikec]

And to quote you: "Is this due to intentional discrimination?"

HINT: The answer is no.

Based on what? Women aren't as good as men at anything on average? Please provide a plausible reason for the pay gap, because to me the answer is really freaking obvious.

http://www.forbes.com/2011/02/18/wo...forbes-woman-leadership-corporate-boards.html

"In 2010 only 2.4% of the U.S. Fortune 500 chief executives were female. In the FTSE 500 the statistics are even worse–only 1.8% of its companies are led by women. Women’s access to boardroom seats is also troubling, particularly in the U.S. and U.K. In the FTSE 100, for example, 12.5% of directors are women, a tiny improvement on the 12.2% in 2009 and 11.7% in 2008."

What would you subscribe this to, pure chance? Lack of interest? Not intelligent enough?

Actually that makes an interesting point

http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl..._reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html

It is an interesting point, though you should note that it's a survey of sexual abuse in established (otherwise consensual) relationships. While it has merit, that area of sexual abuse is a subset of the whole picture.

although not the one you were intending to make. Men are so discriminated against that when they are sexually assaulted it doesn't even count.

That's an interesting conclusion you've drawn. Did I say "gender parity is completely non-existent", or "men being sexually assaulted doesn't count"?

And on the other hand a woman who is a virgin is valued and a man who is a virgin is a loser.

Funny that I don't see you crying about that. Which kinda makes my original point.

Yet virginity being valued in women discourages them from seeking out sexual experience, but the same isn't held for men, which brings us right back to the point I've made.

Furthermore, IMO it's men who mostly value virginity in women and men who mostly disparage virginity in men.

So men like having sex with women is evidence that there is gender inequality? :hmm:

Your reading comprehension seriously needs work.

And who is it that reads about celebrities?

Only women read about celebrities?

And male warriors never ever wear scanty armor to show off their body?

So you found one example. Managing to disprove a "never" you imposed into a discussion does not aid your argument.

For every scantily-clad armour design for men, how many more practical ones do you suppose for men can be found?

For every scantily-clad / female = sexual object armour design that can be found, how many practical ones for women do you suppose can be found?

 

[nehalem256]

How many females in video games have been depicted as obvious sexual objects, compared to men?
http://kotaku.com/thirteen-types-of-ridiculous-female-armor-in-mmorpgs-507570131

I can continue researching, but someone who isn't totally and utterly blinkered from misogyny in modern society wouldn't need me to.

Perhaps you would prefer a more historically accurate rendering of women in medieval and ancient contexts?

So instead of women wearing ridiculous armor they would instead be maids, pregnant wives, post battle rape victims, or whores?

 

[nehalem256]

Based on what? Women aren't as good as men at anything on average?

Based on shitty comparisons.

Factually 60% of college students are women.

Factually men make more money.

Neither is because of discrimination. But because of choices made by men and women

Yet virginity being valued in women discourages them from seeking out sexual experience, but the same isn't held for men, which brings us right back to the point I've made.

Furthermore, IMO it's men who mostly value virginity in women and men who mostly disparage virginity in men.

And plenty of slut shaming is done by women.

Men and women are treated differently. You are making a value judgement on which way of treatment is worse.

Only women read about celebrities?

Are you seriously going to dispute that women are more interested in hollywood celebrities than men?

So you found one example. Managing to disprove a "never" you imposed into a discussion does not aid your argument.

For every scantily-clad armour design for men, how many more practical ones do you suppose for men can be found?

For every scantily-clad / female = sexual object armour design that can be found, how many practical ones for women do you suppose can be found?

Historically how many women wore practical armor?

 

[mikeymikec]

Based on shitty comparisons.

Factually 60% of college students are women.

Factually men make more money.

Neither is because of discrimination. But because of choices made by men and women

So am I to understand that men are better at tactical career choices than women despite more women apparently being better educated?

And plenty of slut shaming is done by women.

Yup.

Men and women are treated differently. You are making a value judgement on which way of treatment is worse.

No, I put forward a point based on the patriarchal base and history of Western societies such as the US.

Are you seriously going to dispute that women are more interested in hollywood celebrities than men?

That's a different point to what you started with. IMO the celebrity obsession is strong, probably equally strong, with men and women, just that the obsession manifests itself in different ways.

Historically how many women wore practical armor?

I thought I had responded to points along this line already, but perhaps I closed a tab I shouldn't? What do computer games and historical accuracy have in common?

I'll add to it - so women historically weren't wearing armour very often, therefore the women seen in computer games should almost invariably wear armour to show off their bodies?

 

[nehalem256]

So am I to understand that men are better at tactical career choices than women despite more women apparently being better educated?

You are to understand that men make choices that result in making more money.

Choices such as for example
working more hours
Majoring in STEM

These things are all well documented

Yup.

Sounds like women are misogynists then

No, I put forward a point based on the patriarchal base and history of Western societies such as the US.

You put forward that men and women are treated differently.

You then made a value judgement that the way men are treated is better. When as I pointed out there is a clear trade off.

Of course ironically really as you seem to agree

It is often men who shame other men for being losers virgins
and
Women who shame women for being sluts.

That's a different point to what you started with. IMO the celebrity obsession is strong, probably equally strong, with men and women, just that the obsession manifests itself in different ways.

Do you think it is men or women that more interested in celebrity dresses and diet?

I thought I had responded to points along this line already, but perhaps I closed a tab I shouldn't? What do computer games and historical accuracy have in common?

I'll add to it - so women historically weren't wearing armour very often, therefore the women seen in computer games should almost invariably wear armour to show off their bodies?

Video games geared toward teen boys show women in scanty clothes. How could this possibly happen

Having female characters act just like male characters in what is essentially a historical context would be absurd.

And wouldn't even appeal to females. How many girls do you think would want to play as Brienne of Tarth?

http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Brienne_of_Tarth

 

[mikeymikec]

Okay going back to this. Whether traditional gender roles benefit men or women is a matter of opinion. Is it better to have a small chance of being a CEO or not die.

Is this a question that men have ever been asked in terms of choosing a career?

What has "a small chance of being a CEO" and serving on the front line got in common? Absolutely nothing.

 

[nehalem256]

Is this a question that men have ever been asked in terms of choosing a career?

What has "a small chance of being a CEO" and serving on the front line got in common? Absolutely nothing.

Both are the result of traditional gender roles. Which is what we were discussing.

Positives: Only men got to be CEO/President/etc

Negatives: Only men got sent to get blown up in war

Which do you think applied to more men? :hmm:

 

[Moonbeam]

It won't be easy to convince inferior minds of the superiority of women. Instead, I'm just going to laugh at the typical defensiveness of those smitten with inferiority complexes.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

 

[nehalem256]

It won't be easy to convince inferior minds of the superiority of women. Instead, I'm just going to laugh at the typical defensiveness of those smitten with inferiority complexes.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

Yep women are so superior. That is why liberals are continually crying for laws to transfer money from men to women...

Or to give them special protection from men...

 

[Texashiker]

It won't be easy to convince inferior minds of the superiority of women.

It is not that men are superior, or women are superior.

We are different, and that difference makes us stronger as a community.

Feminist on the womens side, and sexism on the mens side, equally degrade the community.

For society to function we need men and women working together.

 

[Exophase]

It won't be easy to convince inferior minds of the superiority of women. Instead, I'm just going to laugh at the typical defensiveness of those smitten with inferiority complexes.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

Okay, I really have no idea if you're being serious or not. If someone else made this post in isolation I would assume they were being sarcastic. But as a follow up to your previous post, which doesn't seem sarcastic at all, it's hard to tell. Are you trying to make your tone more obvious or what?

 

[mikeymikec]

You are to understand that men make choices that result in making more money.

Choices such as for example
working more hours
Majoring in STEM

These things are all well documented

The point "Majoring in STEM" would result in a much greater variation in statistics than supported here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States#By_industry_and_occupation

And Wikipedia has countered the "working hours" claim for me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male–female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States#Hours_worked

Sounds like women are misogynists then

What a pointless comment.

You put forward that men and women are treated differently.

You then made a value judgement that the way men are treated is better. When as I pointed out there is a clear trade off.

Of course ironically really as you seem to agree

It is often men who shame other men for being losers virgins
and
Women who shame women for being sluts.

Methinks you've missed the point. In a society with a patriarcal base and history, the influence of men affected what is valued in society.

Do you think it is men or women that more interested in celebrity dresses and diet?

I would agree that women are probably more interested in celebrity dresses (though most of the time said dresses are for maximum gawking appeal, which I'd say is done by mostly men).

Diet? Probably women.

Interest in how actors do their jobs? Fairly equal I'd say, so why do female actors stand a much greater chance of being asked a shallow question like what they ate to shape up for the role? IMO because women are considered to be more for looking at than listening to.

Video games geared toward teen boys show women in scanty clothes. How could this possibly happen

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/08/25/study-adult-women-gamers-outnumber-teenage-boys

Having female characters act just like male characters in what is essentially a historical context would be absurd.

Quite possibly, but it doesn't change the point I made, that computer games and historical accuracy don't often go hand-in-hand.

And wouldn't even appeal to females. How many girls do you think would want to play as Brienne of Tarth?

http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Brienne_of_Tarth

I don't know, considering that her character type certainly isn't common on modern culture, that remains to be seen, I would say.

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonbeam, shoo, go away. You probably throw up everytime you try to talk to a woman. A blow up doll does not count as a real girlfriend.

If women are twice as capable, why do they only make up 4% or 5% of the workforce in construction, drilling, oil field, mining,,,, etc?

I will, however, make an exception to my dear friend Texashiker as all true superior minds reach down to help the good heated inferior up, knowing as I do that my superior knowledge is just as accidental as his ignorance.

Your problem, T, is that you do not know what it means to be superior. You have the numb nuts notion that upper body strength and testosterone driven behavior makes for superiority. Your thinking and capacity to see the world is confined pretty much to a single hemisphere of your brain. The greater fiber bundle connecting the hemispheres of the brain in women is greater than in men. This allows them better access to both linear logical rational thinking as well as holistic intuition and pattern interpretation working in harmony. It is lack of access to this intuitive side of the brain that constantly causes you to be baffled by and flummoxed by my responses to you and why you are both attracted to me and want to push me away.

You long to have that good heart of yours set free from your bigotry, but you are also afraid that true compassion will make you inferior. It won't, trust me.

 

[nehalem256]

The point "Majoring in STEM" would result in a much greater variation in staistics than supported here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States#By_industry_and_occupation

And Wikipedia has countered the "working hours" claim for me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male–female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States#Hours_worked

Those were just 2 examples.

From your source:

The OECD (2002) found that women work fewer hours because in the present circumstances the "responsibilities for child-rearing and other unpaid household work are still unequally shared among partners."

In other words its true.

Reducio ad absurdum, as well as a misogynistic comment.

Also more importantly true.

If slut-shaming is misogynistic. Then obviously women who engage in it are being misogynists.

Methinks you've missed the point. In a society with a patriarcal base and history, the influence of men affected what is valued in society.

I would agree that women are probably more interested in celebrity dresses (though most of the time said dresses are for maximum gawking appeal, which I'd say is done by mostly men).

Diet? Probably women.

Interest in how actors do their jobs? Fairly equal I'd say, so why are female actors stand a much greater chance of being asked a shallow question like what they ate to shape up for the role? IMO because women are considered to be more for looking at than listening to.

Because women are more interested in what women ate than what men ate. As you said the question is asked to appeal to women.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/08/25/study-adult-women-gamers-outnumber-teenage-boys

Quite possibly, but it doesn't change the point I made, that computer games and historical accuracy don't often go hand-in-hand.

I don't know, considering that her character type certainly isn't common on modern culture, that remains to be seen, I would say.

And how many of them are playing RPGs vs. games like CandyCrush? Which by the doesn't have the scantily clad women characters

 

[Moonbeam]

Okay, I really have no idea if you're being serious or not. If someone else made this post in isolation I would assume they were being sarcastic. But as a follow up to your previous post, which doesn't seem sarcastic at all, it's hard to tell. Are you trying to make your tone more obvious or what?

You made this claim:

"Sorry but no, claiming that it's easy for a woman to be twice as capable as a man is wrong and sexist."

Forget for a moment whether it is right or wrong and ask yourself why it is sexist. Aren't you really saying that sexism is the claim that one sex is better than another? What is it about my claim that women are twice as capable as men equals the fact that women are twice as good. My implication was that they are twice as productive in the work place. What is it about your conscious outlook that makes you take that defensively. Suppose I told you that a clam is twice as capable of filtering algae out of water than a snail, which in fact doesn't filter water at all. Would you call me a clamist or a pronouncer of some fact?

I am trying to get you to see that your points of view are determined by and rest on unconscious assumptions you make, like comparisons between the sexes is sexist and negative, when they may simply be facts.

As to whether women are twice as capable as men, such a claim would certainly trigger this unconscious assumption and bring it to the fore for investigation, no?

 

[nehalem256]

Whats funny as for sexism we have

Against women: Virtual female warriors wear skimpy outfits

Against men: Actual male warriors die in large numbers

And you are actually trying to argue that sexism against women is worse?

 

[Knowing]

I can continue researching, but someone who isn't totally and utterly blinkered from misogyny in modern society wouldn't need me to.

How does the male power fantasy manage to get pasted on the front of every romance novel ever written?

How is misogyny responsible for the literary depiction of an actual rape written by a woman originally inspired by a literary depiction of a toxic relationship written by another woman?

Why wouldn't cameras look at the whole designer dress that you bought for this occasion and this occasion only when you bought the whole designer dress for this occasion and this occasion only?

"Do you do that to the guys?"

No of course not, because once you've seen a pair of tailored pants you've seen every pair of tailored pants.