what what ram seems to be riled up over is called "benevolent sexism" and follows the same strain of logic as "why do women not have to serve in a draft/get custody rights more over men????!!!!" (hint: the answer is because they're seen as weak and as mother figures)
also women get incarcerated less than men but women of color get incarcerated more than white women
hth

>>380643
>its basic human kindness and literally the least you can do.
Unless you're doing it to the people who benefit from but don't necessarily support discrimination, in which case it's not really important. The circumstances of their birth have lead to them being people worthy of our disdain and not worthy of civility.

>>380645
i understand. reading is hard

Dave Chappelle - Chivalry Is Dead

See the girl at the bottom right, at 0:27? The one that makes their husband not clap the whole time during this skit? That's Bea.

>>380642
Was that really necessary? I'm not the only one contributing to this topic in the politics thread.
>>380643
Literally no one is saying women should "coddle dudes feelings and egos".

>>380646
I just don't understand how you think you're going to build a better world by engaging in the same sort of assholery that got us to this point in the first place, just changing the target. A revolution that engages in assholery just leads to a Differently Bad World instead of a Better World. Just look what happened when Castro managed to overthrow Baptista.

>>380649
>Just look what happened when Castro managed to overthrow Baptista.
ok can we STOP with the ridiculous comparisons
Someone saying "white people suck" or "men suck" or "die cis scum" in a moment of anger ISN'T COMPARABLE TO TAKING OVER A GODDAMN GOVERNMENT. Don't act like this is going to lead to some Planet of the Apes horseshit. Engaging in "the same sort of assholery" would mean things like actively disenfranchising white people OR an armed group of feminists staging a hostile takeover of the USA and reducing men to property.

>>380652
People say "March comes in like a lion and goes out like a lamb," but they don't mean that the month of March is a large feline alpha predator that puts forth as little effort as possible, engages in infanticide, leaves the hunting to its harem and steals its kills from hyenas that over the course of thirty days becomes an herbivorous hooved ruminant that's covered in wool.

Analogies, metaphors, and similes are often used to illustrate a point without actually meaning that the examples given in them should be taken as literal eventualities. A comparison of one line of thought to another line of thought that come from a similar line of reasoning or emotional space but which had a clearly bad outcome is one way of illustrating the potential pitfalls in engaging in unhealthy ways of thinking. The worry is not that history will repeat itself, but, as Mark Twain put it, that it will rhyme.

>>380648
youre not contributing anything to the discourse except shit you just made up to prove some point im not even sure what it is except maybe "women should be arrested more"

>>380649
weird analogy aside, id like to point out that bc of a historical history of inequality in every aspect of a womans life, the generalizations against women carry a lot more weight than generalizations against men. women have a plethora of harmful stereotypes and expectations they are expected to fall into (not that men don't either! men have to deal with a ton of weird bullshit too most of which stems back to patriarchy garbage which sucks and is the worst) and the reinforcement of those stereotypes keeps women from advancing and becoming equals.
a mans words carry a lot more weight than a womans. if a man says he hates all women hes in a position to keep women from advancing. if a woman says she hates all men, the only negative outcome is that people with misplaced priorities feel jilted because they feel like they're not getting enough recognition for being not an asshole

im not trying to psychoanalyze you but it sounds like youre afraid that women are going to start treating men as badly as men treat women now.

>>380655
That Castro example was neither a metaphor nor an idiom. Is English not your first language or something? If that's the case, I can understand why the difference between an old saying and a flat out ridiculous comparison might be a little fuzzy, but if not, then you have some serious issues with reading comprehension. The Castro thing isn't an idiom. It is literally a thing that happened.

rametarin has a victim complex news at 11

>>380656
I don't think women are likely to start oppressing men any time soon. But when you talk the way you are talking, it makes me think that the only reason that's true is because of lack of opportunity, not lack of the will to do so.

I just think that by only considering civility to be worth fighting for in some circumstances, you are trying to create a world where civility is the exception rather than the norm--which we already have. I argue in favor of equality for women because I want a world where a person's worth is judged on who they are rather than what they are, and that's not possible while women are being oppressed as they are now. When you single out a group of people as deserving of scorn or as undeserving of consideration by virtue of what they are, even if you don't have any chance of actually causing meaningful oppression to them, it becomes clear to me that that's not the kind of world you're working towards.

>>380657
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

>>380660
My original point was that it was a SHITTY ANALOGY. The situations are not comparable.

Besides that, civility is a secondary issue to people having their rights in serious danger. IT CAN BE AN ISSUE, don't get me wrong, but it's really not an issue here.

>>380656
>it sounds like youre afraid that women are going to start treating men as badly as men treat women now
word

>>380662
>IT CAN BE AN ISSUE, don't get me wrong, but it's really not an issue here.
That is a very short-sighted way of looking at things. I will be very surprised if you manage to solve any problems thinking that way.

>>380667
Which bothers you more: what the Republican senators in Texas tried to do the other night, or a woman saying "men suck"? Which is the more pressing issue?

>>380670
>I can only be against one thing at a time.

Live by the sword.
Die by the sword.

>>380656
I like you, Bea, but not actually reading what I wrote in one post and then criticizing someone because "reading is hard" is kind of silly.
And as a matter of clarification, the topic isn't just one subject. The first ladycentric discussion started at >>380495 and pretty much 'ended' after >>380564

The next one picked up from >>380613 on down. That's the one I'm adding/responding to. The whole phony baloney "I'm socially conscious and advocate for equality" thing, when what they really mean is they're advocating for their little group, and their whole eye for inequality or attention span for social injustice stops there. That's looking out for #1. So please don't act like it's all just one conversation being bogarted. It's two similar but technically unrelated ones, side by side.
A discussion on equality between the sexes doesn't begin and end with how many cents on the dollar women make compared to men, and that's exactly where a lot of so called conscientious people leave it off. That's just advocating for your group. I'll support a woman's right to choose, serve in combat and even wear pants. How many of them even think for a minute about the positive sexual selection affects them unfairly (dare I say, 'privilege?') and how that affects society, or the nature of equality, even if only in relation to themselves?
They might start giving a shit about the incarceration rate, mandatory minimums and prison rape if it were women incarcerated at those astounding rates and treated like animals. But they aren't, so they don't see a problem worth advocating for.
>>380658
You're very brave.

>They might start giving a shit about the incarceration rate, mandatory minimums and prison rape if it were women incarcerated at those astounding rates and treated like animals. But they aren't, so they don't see a problem worth advocating for.

who is this "they" aside from a strawman youve concocted to go along with your previous posts comprised of grade a bullshit bc what youre implying right now is that this current generation of feminism doesnt care about rape culture or isnt concerned with being more inclusive of woc, lbt women or women below the poverty line and youre also implying that this generation of feminists are a group of cackling wicked witches who love to see men suffer in the prison system, which is not a thing anyone has ever said ever.

please do not use strawmen feminists in a discussion about unfair generalizations

>>380675
>what youre implying right now is that this current generation of feminism doesnt care about rape culture or isnt concerned with being more inclusive of woc, lbt women or women below the poverty line and youre also implying that this generation of feminists are a group of cackling wicked witches who love to see men suffer in the prison system, which is not a thing anyone has ever said ever.

I said people whose eye for social inequality that begin and end at women's issues, don't care about issues beyond female inequality. That is not code for legitimate feminism, and that's why I worded it this way.
The implication you picked up was also not a thing I implied. Even of the people I'm talking about.

I'm not clambering for men's rights or anything here, I just want to know why anyone has to be treated as lesser or mocked based on skintone/bodyparts/etc.
Defending one group doesn't mean you have to, or are expected to, or should, oppose the others.
That's all.
I just want people to be nice.

>>380680
i think theres something to be said for the amount of petty quibbling that occurs if a woman has the audacity to verbalize her distrust of the people who systematically shit on her 24/7
nothing matters until a mans feelings are hurt, apparently

>>380678
then what are your posts even saying aside from "this group of people i think exist are bad also men go to jail more"

>>380682
>All men must die
>"I don't see what's wrong with a woman venting her frustration about society shitting on her for her sex, full time, all year, every year."

>It's very irritating when people who purport to be feminists (but are not actually feminists) or people who advocate for equality and egalitarianism on tumblr are myopic or apathetic to issues that don't affect them, and still call themselves advocates for equality.
>"Oh my god this discussion has no room for generalizations!"

>>380683

are you trying to make a funny joke or do you seriously not understand that some things people say have a different connotation depending on who's saying it and to who despite it being explained to you like 8 different times. "why cant i say racial slurs" says white guy
and also the fact that "im inventing a group of shrieking harpies to back up my made up data" and a facetious statement are not even remotely on the same level of discourse or level of offensiveness except that you somehow feel threatened by the idea of women treating you the way men treat us because youre desperately searching for any sign of being oppressed so you can shove your way into a discussion about woman and harp about how you feel sad now.

in case ur wondering the correct response to a phrase like "all men must die" is to not care because you shouldnt be so much of an egomaniac that you feel the need to scream until someone coddles and soothes you like a fucking toddler

>>380688
I'm not guilty of being in cahoots with the sort of people that oppress you, just because I possess XY chromosomes and male genitals. Moreover, I'm not at this moment every man that has ever belittled you for your sex. Nor do I deserve to be treated that way, or expect to be treated that way as a given for anything at all, just because I have a male sex. As said above, I piped in in response to >>380613 Which is a different discussion from the one above, altogether. Diatribes happen in the politics thread, as do deviations in the discussion. My post came in after a few, and followed them. On topic.>>380625

Here they are.
>>380613
>>380617
>>380620
>>380621

The goal isn't to poke one another in the eye in a game of juxtapositional gotcha. It's to make things less skewed and unfair for everybody. Not just make things better for ourselves.

>>380678
This is actually an issue that has been encountered previously in the history of Civil Rights. It is the problem of attempting to support Black People while having White Skin; I can put my body on the side of those I support, I can add my voice to the general cry for basic human dignity. But I cannot every truly stand as a Black Man. In some sense, I don't need to. It is more important to lend credence to these ideas as an outside source, a "traitorous force" in the eyes of some racists. Ultimately, though, it is near-impossible to truly step beyond the bounds of your body, and beyond those issues that pertain to your body, though it is important to advocate for those whose rights are in jeopardy.

This has been the case with Women's Right's as well as the rights of Homosexuals and "Race" Rights. It is hard to overlap and it is hard to sympathize, especially with someone whose experience can be just downright different from yours, and especially when those people have, in fact, their own crusades that they are privately more interested in.

More interested in and better suited to handle.

Power, whatever anyone else says, is ultimately a contest of Wills. Players, pawn, individual people, electrons in the global atom, bouncing around semi-randomly from attraction to opposition through weird fields of influence that can extend all the way around the globe. Sometimes Power exists because you can trick people into believing it. Often as not, it exists because you can pay for it. Real power, however, rests on ideas.

And ideas sink or swim based on the audience.

The wage gap is a problem but it is not 100% the problem. In a down economy, everyone could use a little more dough. It is more the perceptual issues that arise from it. Why, given 2 resumes of the exact same qualifications, the only difference being that one is Male and one is Female, is it less likely for the woman to be hired? What is the enormous perceptual difference between the sexes that causes such outcry as this thread, and indeed countless comment threads across the internet, simply because a woman did something? Should not an idea sink or swim of its' own merits, but still award its' thinker for having conceived it?

I might say your very accusation of being unable to have deference for others' rights applies to yourself.

>>380689
So, just for future reference: the correct response to being actively insulted and/or having harm wished upon you by someone else because of your sex is to bend over and take it? And any other response is egomania?

>>380691
You don't need to be a man of any color to know discrimination that leads to a hanging is abominable. Nor is any race or sex more suited to logic or reason, and a sense of fairness is something that is inherent. Experience and culture tempers it, but someone is not without it just because they are not experiencing it firsthand. That said, I don't personally see the mentality of the right to abort, serve in combat, etc. as particularly requiring one to be female in order to agree with it. This is why we trade experiences and confide across a vast assortment of people over this great big world. The wider your net of people, the more stories and perspectives you can get.
My area, for example:
http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/census-states-gay-population-is-increasing_2011-09-04.html
The demographics are almost, to a fault, heteronormative, caucasian and Christian, though it's the least religious state in the union (apparently? Citation needed, but I heard that somewhere). It didn't stop this land and the people on it from passing gay marriage on a People's Ballot. It was not signed through a representative, it was a something we voted for. The people, very much unlike the ones the bill would flag in for and defend, voted in majority favor to defend the rights of others. They had little invested interest in doing so, other than deciding what was right. The way they expressed their will had almost nothing to do with personal exposure, but conscience and reason and dare I say compassion.
If it seemed like I have an issue with correcting the wage gap, I assure you, I'm in full support of equal pay for equal work and addressing the issues of bias by people taking the worker's sex into account when being graded for productivity. That was not the purpose of what I said in regards to it.

are you guys seriously responding to and getting up in arms about an obviously facetious comment about "all men must die" even after it was pointed out by the person that said it that it was indeed not a serious comment

is this happening

are
you
serious

>>380682
>>380683
>All this told.
>The white woman empire is crumbling.
>Half the white race exterminated in the blink of an eye.
>Nobody to stop our sports superstars from living long, successful lives as retired millionaires.

THE HONKIES ARE CONSUMING EACH OTHER.
THEY ARE SO BUTTHURT THAT THEY CAN'T EVEN DISCUSS THEIR FEELINGS WITHOUT RESORTING TO INSULTS, STRAWMEN, AND AD HOMINEM.
THEY SIMPLY COULD NOT STAND LIVING IN A WORLD WHERE THEIR WOMEN COULD COLLECT ALIMONY FOR EXITING A MARRIAGE WITHOUT A SAFETY NET AND THEIR MEN CAN FEEL MAD BY THEMSELVES WHEN THEY DON'T GET PUSSY.

WE ARE ONE STEP CLOSER TO TRUE EQUALITY AND WORLD PEACE.
THANK YOU GHOST TRAYVON. THANK YOU JETPACK PANTHERS.

>>380694
It was actually established very high up that the original statement was facetious, and a quote. It graduated away from the quote and became about if ignorance should be discouraged all around, or allowed to be. At least, when certain parties express it. Which is a different conversation entirely.

>>380695

This is why you're my favorite.

Some women hate men.
Some men hate women.
All women hate men who hate women.
All men hate women who hate men.
My, what a conflict. Let's put a stop to the internet until this matter has been resolved.

All women must die.

>>380695
moe honey go to bed

Except Dr. Nurse, she cool. I'm a make her a sammich she never forget.

>>380708
thank u

using no caps or punctuation and abbreviations makes u look important

>>380713
im impotnet

>generalizing sexes
>generalizing races
>2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

There are no words

>>380746
Politics.

What a riot. There's always a loophole for one side or the other to exploit.

>>380746
>The law had applied to nine states — Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia
Meh, internal discrimination, if they want a law like this let it apply to everyone, which they allowed:
>Congress remained free to try to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights were at risk, but must do so based on contemporary data

Besides the black judge struck it down so I got no complaint against the ruling, and no one else has any right to complaint against it either.

Only the (white) women judges dissented, because their periods synced and it was that day of the month.

>>380834
>Only the (white) women judges dissented, because their periods synced and it was that day of the month.

Dude, shut the fuck up. Also

>Sotomayor
>White

Herbert Moon blames the Jewish…

I had dinner with my family.

Le sigh

>>381511 (cross post to the general thread)
So frustrating to be caught between all this. On the one hand obviously I support Travyon and his family. On the other hand, I myself had not even heard about the part where Travyon went back and provoked Zimmerman. None of this should have happened for multiple reasons, and Travyon should not have been killed over something so trivial and pointless. But now that everything's on the table, it's impossible to reconcile the needs of equality with the actions Travyon took. I still support him and his family, but while Zimmerman is an offensive piece of shit, Trayvon ultimately walked back into a dangerous situation and though he has the right to be unmolested for his skin color, the thing is that legal rights lag behind reality and no amount of rights could defend him from attacking a guy with a gun.

There's no victory here either way.

thank you for share!
http://jimmychoosahoesonsale.com