Should women protect themselves from rape

[Texashiker]

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.

Its ok moonie, I still love you.

<cyberhug>

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.

logical rational thinking?

You have never pissed off a woman have you?

Trying to reason with a mad pissed off woman is like trying to reason with a firecracker. You would have better luck talking to a rattlesnake than a mad woman. At least you can run from a rattlesnake.

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.

I have compassion and love, your liberal mind has blinded you to what true love it.

Liberals think love is handouts, welfare and abortions. When nobody needs your help you think we hate you.

 

[nehalem256]

You think that is bad?

Perhaps we should bring up the stories, written by women, about women wanting to have sex with a dinosaur?D:

 

[Moonbeam]

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...

Perhaps if you weren't such a colossal asshole your wife wouldn't have divorced you and your alimony wouldn't be through the roof. Only a simpleton would mistake Karma for a woman's name.

 

[Exophase]

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?

Your comment was sexist for two reasons. The first is that it's a stereotype directed towards all members of a gender. It's not a statement of trends or averages but an absolute. I am pretty confident that I don't have a single capability outside of reproductive roles that couldn't be greatly exceeded by some woman. I'm also pretty confident that the same could be said for a woman chosen at random vs some man sought out.

Looking at trends and averages in groups can be insightful, but it's a dangerous fallacy to begin using this as representative in individual cases. This promotion of generalizations and stereotypes serves to discourage individuals from pursuing anything outside of their expected roles, which is precisely why women face challenges in the workplace. It doesn't seek an explanation for statistics but instead promotes it as an intrinsic and immutable attribute of being a member of the group.

The second reason is that it's sexist because it's such a blatantly outlandish claim that goes against all common knowledge and experience, with no attempt to actually justify it. Not only did you say that women are twice as capable (which is a much stronger statement than merely twice as productive), but you said that it's easy for a woman to be. That looks like it's coming from a position of extreme prejudice against men because that's the easiest explanation for such ignorance.

 

[mikeymikec]

In other words its true.

You're jumping to conclusions based on reading as little as possible.

For starters, what percentage of women do you suppose raise a family in their life? I can't find a figure. But it is generally acknowledged that poorer people are more likely to have children and more of them.

Furthermore, I very much doubt that a graph showing the number of hours worked along with the salary earnt is going to show any sort of consistency. I'm sure that if the statistics only cover a particular career choice where more hours = higher pay, it would be consistent.

Also more importantly true.

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

You said "Sounds like women are misogynists then". What you've just said is a very different statement. The fact that you shift from one to the other without any sort of admission simply highlights your prejudice.

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

You've missed the point again: Female actor gets asked braindead question, male actor doesn't. Common occurrence. There's no line to say that men can only be interested in what men say and the same for women, except possibly in your mind.

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

IMO if teenage males grow up with constant imagery thrown at them by the entertainment industries of scantily-clad women, it's hardly going to help them generate a perception of women has human beings on an equal footing to them.

IMO if some computer game makers constantly design games with only men in mind, is it any great surprise that women might look for their computer game entertainment elsewhere?

IMO if teenage females grow up with constant imagery thrown at them by the entertainment industries of scantily-clad women, it's hardly going to help them generate a perception of women has human beings on an equal footing to men.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Well I'm glad we've gotten away from the essentially useless issue about whether or not women bear any responsibility in rape and can discuss the truly pressing matter of whether Fifty Shades of Gray and Conan the Barbarian proves women are misogynists. Or something to that effect; I lost my "idiot to English" translator.

 

[MrPickins]

The fact that I was milked for child support for 14 years while my ex-wife was not required to provide for the children.

Your lazy ass could have sued for custody.

If your ex-wife is as bad as you make her out to be, winning should have been no problem.

 

[MrPickins]

Well if men looking at a woman = oppression

If that is your example of an average feminist, I'd like to submit an exampe of an average Christian:

By debating against the far extreme cases, you weaken your argument.

 

[Texashiker]

Your lazy ass could have sued for custody.

It must be nice to have an extra $20k just laying around with nothing better to do.

 

[Exophase]

By debating against the far extreme cases, you weaken your argument.

Made all the more worse in this case, where that picture isn't actually an example of anyone since the writing on the sign was photoshopped in.

 

[nehalem256]

You're jumping to conclusions based on reading as little as possible.

For starters, what percentage of women do you suppose raise a family in their life? I can't find a figure. But it is generally acknowledged that poorer people are more likely to have children and more of them.

Furthermore, I very much doubt that a graph showing the number of hours worked along with the salary earnt is going to show any sort of consistency. I'm sure that if the statistics only cover a particular career choice where more hours = higher pay, it would be consistent.

No Im pretty sure that working more hours is going to correlate pretty nicely with salary within a given career path.

You said "Sounds like women are misogynists then". What you've just said is a very different statement. The fact that you shift from one to the other without any sort of admission simply highlights your prejudice.

And if slut shaming makes you a misogynist then clearly some women are misogynists.

You've missed the point again: Female actor gets asked braindead question, male actor doesn't. Common occurrence. There's no line to say that men can only be interested in what men say and the same for women, except possibly in your mind.

So asking how someone got the body necessary for a given role is "braindead"?

IMO if some computer game makers constantly design games with only men in mind, is it any great surprise that women might look for their computer game entertainment elsewhere?

Then perhaps instead of making a video about sexist tropes in video games they should instead make video games that appeal to women and make a boatload of cash?

Of course the fact that they don't perhaps also explains why men make more money

IMO if teenage males grow up with constant imagery thrown at them by the entertainment industries of scantily-clad women, it's hardly going to help them generate a perception of women has human beings on an equal footing to them.

IMO if teenage females grow up with constant imagery thrown at them by the entertainment industries of scantily-clad women, it's hardly going to help them generate a perception of women has human beings on an equal footing to men.

So being scantily-clad makes you less of a human being?

Also, as I explained. In matters of medievalesque combat men are clearly superior.

 

[MrPickins]

It must be nice to have an extra $20k just laying around with nothing better to do.

Must be nice to feel that you don't owe your children a damn thing after you divorce their mother.

The point is, you had an option. You chose to let her assume custody; you need to take responsibility for your actions. (sound familiar?)

 

[MrPickins]

Made all the more worse in this case, where that picture isn't actually an example of anyone since the writing on the sign was photoshopped in.

Wow...

I didn't catch that.

 

[Texashiker]

Must be nice to feel that you don't owe your children a damn thing after you divorce their mother.

I never said that.

What I did say is both parents should be held to the same standard of responsibility.

 

[MrPickins]

I never said that.

What I did say is both parents should be held to the same standard of responsibility.

Which they are.

You think it was all fun and games for her to raise your kids after you left? You honestly think that she spent zero dollars on them?

Get over your butt-hurt. If you wanted her paying support to you, you should have sued for custody.

 

[Atreus21]

Yes, women should protect themselves from rape, just as I should protect myself from murder.

It ain't worth getting murdered to prove that murderers are assholes.

 

[Moonbeam]

Your comment was sexist for two reasons. The first is that it's a stereotype directed towards all members of a gender. It's not a statement of trends or averages but an absolute. I am pretty confident that I don't have a single capability outside of reproductive roles that couldn't be greatly exceeded by some woman. I'm also pretty confident that the same could be said for a woman chosen at random vs some man sought out.

Looking at trends and averages in groups can be insightful, but it's a dangerous fallacy to begin using this as representative in individual cases. This promotion of generalizations and stereotypes serves to discourage individuals from pursuing anything outside of their expected roles, which is precisely why women face challenges in the workplace. It doesn't seek an explanation for statistics but instead promotes it as an intrinsic and immutable attribute of being a member of the group.

Furthermore, it is a statement that as a group women are twice as capable as men, not that any particular woman is superior to any particular man.

E: The second reason is that it's sexist because it's such a blatantly outlandish claim that goes against all common knowledge and experience, with no attempt to actually justify it. Not only did you say that women are twice as capable (which is a much stronger statement than merely twice as productive), but you said that it's easy for a woman to be. That looks like it's coming from a position of extreme prejudice against men because that's the easiest explanation for such ignorance.

M: It doesn't go against my experience. Women are obviously twice as capable as men to me. It appears sexist of you to deny this in my opinion, would be my counter to your logic.

You failed, I think, to address the issue I was making, that what sexism is a belief and it's good or evil a matter of unconsciously accepted biases.

Your argument that stereotypes discourage development in outside roles was a good argument, I think, but what if women started to believe as a group they were twice as capable as men. Surely that might go some way in addressing the obvious imbalance in the work place of women's current earning levels and put them more toward 200% better than men. The single earner family will be possible again and men can stay home with the kids.

But just to show I'm open minded, I could be off by two or three percent.

 

[mikeymikec]

And if slut shaming makes you a misogynist then clearly some women are misogynists.

You're repeating yourself.

So asking how someone got the body necessary for a given role is "braindead"?

Yes. The answer is obvious: Diet, exercise.

Then perhaps instead of making a video about sexist tropes in video games they should instead make video games that appeal to women and make a boatload of cash?

Of course the fact that they don't perhaps also explains why men make more money

In a male dominated industry that thinks it should aim its products mostly at men. Yes, that sounds like a marriage made in heaven.

So being scantily-clad makes you less of a human being?

Reducio ad absurdum. If a gender is mostly represented in media purely as something nice to look at, you really don't think that's going to affect peoples' perceptions of that gender?

Also, as I explained. In matters of medievalesque combat men are clearly superior.

Which has what to do with computer games? And therefore women should therefore mostly wear armour that is totally impractical and its only purpose is to show off their figure?

 

[BoberFett]

If that is your example of an average feminist, I'd like to submit an exampe of an average Christian:

By debating against the far extreme cases, you weaken your argument.

The left in this forum tries to paint extremists as the norm all the time, so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Because you know
I'm all about that bass
'Bout that bass, no treble
I'm all about that bass
'Bout that bass, no treble
I'm all about that bass
'Bout that bass, no treble
I'm all about that bass
'Bout that bass

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PCkvCPvDXk

 

[Exophase]

M: It doesn't go against my experience. Women are obviously twice as capable as men to me. It appears sexist of you to deny this in my opinion, would be my counter to your logic.

Maybe it would help if you tried to substantiate this claim at all. It sounds like it is, at best, based on little more than a very limited sampling based on a few examples in your life.

Extraordinary claims, which yours very much qualifies as, require extraordinary evidence. If you can't actually see why the claim is extraordinary then you're at a deep disconnect vs what people actually belief. There isn't a widely held but secret acknowledgement that women are several times more capable than men (again, not merely twice as capable, easily twice as capable vs some men that are presumably actually trying hard).

But you don't seem to be willing to provide any evidence. That makes your claim seem less like an attempt at arguing a real point and more at an attack against all members of a gender.

You failed, I think, to address the issue I was making, that what sexism is a belief and it's good or evil a matter of unconsciously accepted biases.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. I'm going to go with google define here:

prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

Your statement absolutely reeks of prejudice on the basis of sex (well, probably more accurately, gender. Depending on what you meant. Maybe genderism?)

I was not however making a statement on the ethical value of your claim. I'm not really that interested.

Your argument that stereotypes discourage development in outside roles was a good argument, I think, but what if women started to believe as a group they were twice as capable as men. Surely that might go some way in addressing the obvious imbalance in the work place of women's current earning levels and put them more toward 200% better than men. The single earner family will be possible again and men can stay home with the kids.

But just to show I'm open minded, I could be off by two or three percent.

So is that what you're getting at? Let me see if I'm following this - you think that there's a systematic problem where women are taught that they're inferior to men, and you want to compensate for this by instead convincing them that they're vastly superior? Why do you think this would actually improve anything? Why do you think this wouldn't eventually create the same problem for men?

Besides that, there's only really a weak correlation between productivity (as defined by efficiency/hour, not hours worked) and earning power. We don't live in much of a meritocracy.

The decline of the single earner family has to do with economic forces that go well beyond gender wars. You won't fix that with gender equality. If anything, the lessened expectations of men to be sole providers have helped improve equality. And these days a much higher percentage of men who are stay at home fathers is much higher than it was back when there were far more single income households (http://www.npr.org/2013/05/15/180300236/stay-at-home-dads-breadwinner-moms-and-making-it-all-work) so that's already how things are trending.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Feminism.

But don't claim it is about equality then, because it isnt. Its about rights for women, as you said, not equality.

Feminism: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[MrPickins]

The left in this forum tries to paint extremists as the norm all the time, so I'm not sure what your point is.

The only people that do that are morons, no matter which side they're on.

Just because your opponent don't know how to argue logically doesn't mean you should sink to his/her level.

 

[BoberFett]

Because you know
I'm all about that bass
'Bout that bass, no treble
I'm all about that bass
'Bout that bass, no treble
I'm all about that bass
'Bout that bass, no treble
I'm all about that bass
'Bout that bass

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PCkvCPvDXk

Equality!*


*Except for those skinny bitches.

 

[BoberFett]

The only people that do that are morons, no matter which side they're on.

Just because your opponent don't know how to argue logically doesn't mean you should sink to his/her level.

The only level this forum has is subterranean.