• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Why can't we hate men?"

Fudbucker said:
Good read. This is what I mean when I said "we men":

"First, female anger toward men is understandable; if I were a woman I would be extremely angry that I cannot just go anywhere, anytime, even in a “safe neighborhood” at night, without worrying about being attacked. I would be extremely angry that I cannot go on a date without being afraid of being raped. The whole situation of valid female fear for safety does justify anger and men should be angry for women and should get involved in making sure women are safe and their attackers punished. I am angry for women and I ought to do more for them. All men should be involved in promoting safety for women."

Just being a nice guy who doesn't mistreat women isn't enough. We have to step up and change the misogynistic culture that exists. One of the things men can do is make misogyny a deal-breaker in a friendship, if it already isn't.
Click to expand...

Your idea is to take people who are lashing out, and further segregate them from positive influence, prompting them to find like minded friendship?

Wow, just, wow.

Do you ever listen to the other side? Or hell, see them as people with the same feelings as you? These people are becoming entrenched because they feel attacked, attacking them further isn't going to help.

Better idea, talk to your friend, find out why they feel that way, and do your best to show them the value of your method of thinking. Show them they don't have anything to fear of the time when people are equal.

I know it doesn't feel as good as playing on their fears and insecurities to twist the knife and rile them up, but you know what, it's actually effective. Do you tend to listen to people that obviously love making you squirm? Is the same for them, despite what you may think.

This attitude of "we don't need friends we need change" is failing in a major way. We need *********** friends, we have enough people hating us that a laughingstock got elected just to spite us. Let that sink in, a man that was parodied on tiny toons got elected because we have been burning bridges with average folk in the name of idealism.

Want to actually self crit? Let that sink in and take a good look at where we are now due to wanting to stick it to the old white men, versus actually advance the cause.
 
d4m10n said:
You asked a question about billions of people, not about me. You should expect an answer that relates to something those billions have in common, not an answer that would make sense in the context of an individual criminal trial.
Click to expand...

Effects of hormones are a definite.

Good job you just made a damn good case for women not being in positions of power.

Personally I feel every person has the ability to overcome their hormonal urges so thankfully you didn't convince me.

Ever notice how the majority of your arguement are just ****** stereotypes but reversed? May want to put some thought into that.
 
d4m10n said:
Why not? Wouldn't the U.S. Senate be better off with 50 women from 50 states?
Click to expand...

Um... no? Why would that automatically be the case?

I could find you dozens of women who are mean, incompetent morons. I could find you dozens of men who are the opposite. I could find you plenty of women who would vote against certain "women's issues," such as abortion rights and birth control on healthcare. I could find you scores of men who'd vote the opposite way.

The idea is, I think, to educate society to have fewer prejudices against women in positions of authority. But interfering with the democratic process is hardly going to be effective toward that end. Can you imagine the freak-outs?
 
erlando said:
I agree with this. But your words were "We men have a lot to atone for". Doing your bit for the betterment of women's lives isn't atonement. That's just common human decency IMO.
Click to expand...

When else do you feel people have something to atone for due to actions that were not theirs?

I'm going to bet no incidences will include groups you keenly support.
 
d4m10n said:
Because risk-aversion isn't desirable in leadership?
Click to expand...

While I don't fully agree with sadhatter's comment, the answer to your question is - no, not always. Sometimes. It's a balance.


ETA - That's why it takes all kinds of people.
 
If it helps we have a pretty relevant situation to this topic happening here at this very moment.

Our female Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who was elected in last year is pregnant.

She found out just after apparently.

In fact she is due to give birth tomorrow.

It means she is taking 6 weeks off and we will have an acting leader of the country from a different Party that only 7% of the country voted for.

I have a feeling it will end up more than 6 weeks because she is 37-38.

It seems most of the country seem to not be annoyed about this but there are a lot that are

Personally I don't have a problem with her side of the thing, but am not looking forward to get temporary replacement as he is an idiot and his appointment was thrust on our country
 
theprestige said:
Risk aversion isn't desirable in leadership. It interferes with proper risk assessment, and preemptively disregards some options.
Click to expand...

Risk seeking isn't desirable in leadership. It interferes with proper risk assessment, and preemptively disregards some options.

Perhaps we should ask which sex has a more realistic outlook with respect to risk. I have a guess, based on the list of political sex scandals and the Darwin Awards.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
You think women are given the chance to vote for other women half the time? 25% maybe?
Click to expand...

Gasp, you mean they are forced to pick based on issues not tribal towing the line? Holy **** !

If your voting preference is "my gender" I don't respect your lazy potentially harmful logic as helping humanity.
 
isissxn said:
Um... no? Why would that automatically be the case?

I could find you dozens of women who are mean, incompetent morons. I could find you dozens of men who are the opposite. I could find you plenty of women who would vote against certain "women's issues," such as abortion rights and birth control on healthcare. I could find you scores of men who'd vote the opposite way.

The idea is, I think, to educate society to have fewer prejudices against women in positions of authority. But interfering with the democratic process is hardly going to be effective toward that end. Can you imagine the freak-outs?
Click to expand...

Isn't "better representation" supposed to mean "represents our values" not "has similar genitals/skin colour"???

Politicians publicly say what their positions are on policy. Or they dodge, lie, exaggerate, of course. You can vote on what you want to represent you. If there aren't people representing your interests shouldn't you
1) run (likely not practical or successful)
2) call your representatives, march, interview, write letters, etc.

instead of
3) Ask for quotas so more people with similar genitals/skin colour are in office.

If you can't be bothered to do 1 or 2, what makes you think 3 will lead to people that represent your INTERESTS.

*I'm using a generic "you"
 
Ziggurat said:
It's the wrong question, as I already explained.
Click to expand...

I don't care about the explanation, I care about what your answer is. You're having trouble providing one. Why is that?


Insufficient data. It seems unlikely that such a result would occur in the absence of unjustified discrimination, but that is the problem in such an event, not the specific gender and racial makeup that resulted. That's the wrong focus.
Click to expand...

You don't have insufficient data because I was talking about THIS country. If THIS country, with it's history of racial and gender oppression, was being run exclusively by rich white men, could we call ourselves a "representative democracy" without being laughed at? Yes/No? It's obvious to me the answer is no. Your answer is...?



Mostly in nebulous terms which do little good. Only occassionally with specifics like this:



Not in the least. And I'm all for changing that. Make settlements public, and paid for by the culprits. Oust abusers. Support victims. I can get behind all of that.

But that's distinct from quotas and trying to force the numbers up just to have the numbers up.
Click to expand...

That's the second time I've brought up sexual harassment on Capital Hill in this thread. And your sentiments are applauded, but here's my problem with men as a whole: why did we tolerate a publicly-funded sexual harassment account for Congressmen? Why weren't we out front-and-center either opposing it from the start or demanding it be removed? Why did we allow the process for women to report abuse to be so onerous? And that's just a small subset of the problems women face in this country. These are the kinds of sins of omission that we as a gender are guilty of. We allowed a horrific system to exist way beyond it's "shelf life", and the majority of us voted for a person who bragged about sexual assault, and the majority of us STILL support that person.

There's a problem with men.
 
Ziggurat said:
Why is that important? I want my government representatives to represent my interests. I don't care if their superficial characteristics match mine. I also want there to not be unfair barriers to political participation, but a demographic mismatch between politicians and voters is not proof of the existence of such barriers.

If there's a barrier you want knocked down, then that's what you should work on.



But it's the oppression and the barriers to participation which matter. That's the point. And you aren't actually talking about that. Curious.
Click to expand...


One other thing: If "superficial" characteristics like skin color and having a vagina or not was the difference between whether you can vote, or be owned by someone else, or drink at a certain fountain, or sit where you want on a bus, or go to a decent school, they're not so "superficial", are they?
 
Fudbucker said:
One other thing: If "superficial" characteristics like skin color and having a vagina or not was the difference between whether you can vote, or be owned by someone else, or drink at a certain fountain, or sit where you want on a bus, or go to a decent school, they're not so "superficial", are they?
Click to expand...

Good thing that's not the case now
 
Fudbucker said:
I don't care about the explanation, I care about what your answer is. You're having trouble providing one. Why is that?




You don't have insufficient data because I was talking about THIS country. If THIS country, with it's history of racial and gender oppression, was being run exclusively by rich white men, could we call ourselves a "representative democracy" without being laughed at? Yes/No? It's obvious to me the answer is no. Your answer is...?





That's the second time I've brought up sexual harassment on Capital Hill in this thread. And your sentiments are applauded, but here's my problem with men as a whole: why did we tolerate a publicly-funded sexual harassment account for Congressmen? Why weren't we out front-and-center either opposing it from the start or demanding it be removed? Why did we allow the process for women to report abuse to be so onerous? And that's just a small subset of the problems women face in this country. These are the kinds of sins of omission that we as a gender are guilty of. We allowed a horrific system to exist way beyond it's "shelf life", and the majority of us voted for a person who bragged about sexual assault, and the majority of us STILL support that person.

There's a problem with men.
Click to expand...

You didn't ask me but I'll give my answer:

My answer is "yes" you could say that without being laughed at, unless your definition of "representative democracy" is "the demographics of those in positions of power perfectly match the demographics of everyone else"

See my earlier post for further explanation.

But the reality is not 100% one demographic in power. It's a large fraction, sure. But I'd argue it's actually solely irrelevant, if it is legally possible (it is) for this to change.
 
d4m10n said:
*checks public school rankings*
Click to expand...

ah I missed the "good school" one in the list. I won't argue that point, since it's largely true (I think) that race is pretty predictive of education level and how good schools are.
 
pharphis said:
Good thing that's not the case now
Click to expand...

It is a good thing that de jure discrimination was ended.

But are you claiming de facto discrimination doesn't exist? Do you think the attitudes behind those practices we forbade haven't lingered on? Because if discrimination still does exist, and a lot of people still operate in a racist/sexist mindset, we have a serious problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom