Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

nkelsch wrote:
Right... and African Americans also have the same rights as whites so discrimination doesn't exist anymore since a law was passed.

Simply having laws which declared equality and everyone equal means that there are no issues in our social fabric in regards to discrimination which still need to be addressed.

Your posts seem to state that there is no discrimination against women, so no need for civil rights for women? Problem solved? What a bigoted stance to pretend active inequity doesn't still exist every day in our society.

Choose a statistical marker. Any statistical marker. Compare blacks and whites. If it would be better to have a higher number than a lower one, white will have a higher number than blacks. If it would be better to have a lower number than a higher one, white will have a lower number than blacks. Unemployment? Higher for blacks than whites. Imprisonment? Higher than blacks for white. College attendance? Higher for whites than blacks. Home ownership? Higher for whites than blacks. You can make a very compelling argument that black Americans are discriminated against. Life expectancy? Lower for blacks.

That argument is much harder to make for women. While women lag behind in the highest level of leadership, such as corporate executive and senators, women don't lag behind in any economic sense since all of those men in power have wives who live in luxury. Women are treated more leniently by the legal system at every level, women are less likely to be victims of violence, less likely to be injured on the job, less likely to be unemployed, live longer, receive better healthcare, are more likely to graduate college, and according to real statistics (and not the BS "wage gap" nonsense) outearn men.

There isn't any real measurable discrimination against women.

 friendlycommissar wrote:
While women lag behind in the highest level of leadership, such as corporate executive and senators, women don't lag behind in any economic sense since all of those men in power have wives who live in luxury.

Lol, seriously? Women don't lag behind because they can always marry a successful man and take advantage of his luxury? I guess you don't place any value on the ability to obtain that luxury yourself, instead of having to sell yourself to someone more successful?

women are less likely to be victims of violence

Now look at those statistics again, but remove violence where the victim was involved in crime as well. The overall numbers are skewed by things like gang violence, which is typically man on man because only men are involved in the gang, if you just look at the chance for an average person who doesn't deliberately place themselves in dangerous/violent situations to be the victim of a violent crime then I think you'll get some very different numbers.

less likely to be injured on the job

Only because certain dangerous and physically-demanding jobs are overwhelmingly male-dominated. I doubt you'll find any significant difference if you compare women and men in similar fields.

less likely to be unemployed

Only because unemployment numbers don't count people who give up on getting a job. This is a major problem in talking about the current economic "recovery", and it's the same kind of situation here. If you have a woman who gives up on looking for a career and settles for staying at home with a man to support her then she no longer counts as unemployed. If you include the vast number of women who have no job but don't officially count as unemployed then I think you'll reach a very different conclusion.

live longer

What does this have to do with rights issues?

and according to real statistics (and not the BS "wage gap" nonsense) outearn men.

Citation please. And when responding to this please don't post statistics that fail to account for the lower chance women have of getting promoted to better-paying positions in their field.

There isn't any real measurable discrimination against women.

Well, if you define "measurable" to exclude any measurement that shows discrimination, then sure. Otherwise you're living in a fantasy world here.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
An entitled, self-absorbed, egomaniac with delusions of adequacy. I am fed up of people complaining about "being in the friendzone", or "being a nice guy and getting nowhere". Just because you are nice to someone X number of times does not mean that they owe you sex. Just because you couldn't tell someone that you were interested does not make it their fault you didn't get what you wanted. And because you got rejected it does not give you the right to stab and shoot people.

I refuse to watch his videos or read his manifesto. I do not agree with giving people a platform to spout their crap after they have killed people. I do not agree with the media giving the perpetrator his fifteen minutes of fame, it sends out the message that if society excludes you and you don't feel respected or listened to then murder and your message will get an audience wider than you could ever get otherwise. Most of us know, or can recognize the names of people who have carried out mass shootings. How many of us can name the victims, or the people who stopped a mass shooting?

I agree with both paragraphs strongly.

Citation please. And when responding to this please don't post statistics that fail to account for the lower chance women have of getting promoted to better-paying positions in their field.

I'm willing to bet someone could fudge numbers to say women earn more. Many more men are employed on all ends of the spectrum, while as a percentage a much higher number of women work in higher paying fields. If you play with the average numbers you could probably twist them into saying women earn more on average than men. Completely ignoring that women usually earn less than men doing the exact same job and when that's not the case they earn the same amount (usually minimum wage, which isn't a consolation prize really).

nkelsch wrote:

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
Do you believe it wrong to continue being friends after you have asked a girl out and she has given a neutral response(being friends before you asked her out)?
Also, in the whole spirit of double standards, I believe we have yet to discuss the equivalent of the friend zone through the other gender's perspective.

'Friend Zone' implies one of the two friends is only friends because they can't get more. On the other end, it is called 'keeping someone on the hook' when you intentionally keep someone in the friend zone and accept their 'friendship favors' because you feel like maybe eventually dating them once you have done what you needed. Both are relationships founded on lies on both sides which have a 'friendship' which is based on secret agendas and cause more hurt later.

I am not in 'the friend zone' with my actual friends... I call those people 'friends'. If you are in 'the friend zone' it basically means you harbor feelings, but are so obsessed with a person you would rather a friendship based on a lie than be honest and end the friendship and move on or respect them enough to not expect 'payment' for your friendship.

Her words were somewhere along the lines of " let me think about it"
I didn't mention "friendzone" in my example, and I don't think this actually directly applies.

This thread got...weird.

This isn't about women. This is about a spoiled narcissist psycho who killed men and women. He was crazy as a gak rat and if it wasn't women, something else would have set him off. A sane person don't think "hey I'm going to go shoot up wimminz and stab my roomates and run over people because I didn't get my way."

 Frazzled wrote:
This thread got...weird.

This isn't about women. This is about a spoiled narcissist psycho who killed men and women. He was crazy as a gak rat and if it wasn't women, something else would have set him off. A sane person don't think "hey I'm going to go shoot up wimminz and stab my roomates and run over people because I didn't get my way."

I think it went from blame the victim to spill over from the dating thread.

Women only earn more in certain activities where the nutjobs get their views on women.

"What normal girls don't act like in porn films like Logjammin?" (see what i did there )

 Peregrine wrote:
Lol, seriously? Women don't lag behind because they can always marry a successful man and take advantage of his luxury? I guess you don't place any value on the ability to obtain that luxury yourself, instead of having to sell yourself to someone more successful?

Yes. That's how it works in real life. I come from a very wealthy family, and the wealthy wives of my wealthy male relatives all have college degrees and made deliberate choices not to work. Most are heavily involved in all number of charitable organizations and have very full, rewarding lives.

Now look at those statistics again, but remove violence where the victim was involved in crime as well. The overall numbers are skewed by things like gang violence, which is typically man on man because only men are involved in the gang, if you just look at the chance for an average person who doesn't deliberately place themselves in dangerous/violent situations to be the victim of a violent crime then I think you'll get some very different numbers.

In other words, when you cook the statistics enough, and come up with enough reason to blame male victims of violence for their own victimization, and twist your definition of victim sufficiently, then it matches your preconcieved notions. Amazing how that works.

Only because certain dangerous and physically-demanding jobs are overwhelmingly male-dominated. I doubt you'll find any significant difference if you compare women and men in similar fields.

And where are the feminists fighting for equal representation of women in those fields? Oh, nowhere. They're just complaining that the unskilled women who go into unskilled safe retail positions where no one gets injured aren't paid as much as the unskilled men who work in places where injuries are a common occurrence. Because that's "equality."

Only because unemployment numbers don't count people who give up on getting a job. This is a major problem in talking about the current economic "recovery", and it's the same kind of situation here. If you have a woman who gives up on looking for a career and settles for staying at home with a man to support her then she no longer counts as unemployed. If you include the vast number of women who have no job but don't officially count as unemployed then I think you'll reach a very different conclusion.

I love how you can say this and totally ignore that men don't have this "fall back on being supported by a man" option, which is why 7 times as many men as women are homeless.

But yes, again, if you cook the data to support your preconceived notions, then amazingly it matches your notions.

live longer

What does this have to do with rights issues?

We would expect a class of people who are being oppressed to have a shorter life span.

and according to real statistics (and not the BS "wage gap" nonsense) outearn men.

Citation please. And when responding to this please don't post statistics that fail to account for the lower chance women have of getting promoted to better-paying positions in their field.

Here you go.

Well, if you define "measurable" to exclude any measurement that shows discrimination, then sure. Otherwise you're living in a fantasy world here.

Citations please. And when responding to this please don't post statistics that have been manipulated and distorted to support an agenda. Unbiased sources only.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
An entitled, self-absorbed, egomaniac with delusions of adequacy. I am fed up of people complaining about "being in the friendzone", or "being a nice guy and getting nowhere". Just because you are nice to someone X number of times does not mean that they owe you sex. Just because you couldn't tell someone that you were interested does not make it their fault you didn't get what you wanted. And because you got rejected it does not give you the right to stab and shoot people.

Exactly.

I read one of the #yes all women things, where a guy was saying this is what happens when you don't give a nice guy a chance... except the girls weren't rejecting a nice guy, they were rejecting a self-obsessed, murderous lunatic. Which kind of gets to the very heart of the issue - most of the self-identified 'nice guys' aren't actually very nice people at all, they're just donkey-caves who think being polite and friendly to a girl for a set period of time entitles them to sex.

I still believe that the best way to tackle these incidents is investment and engagement with mental health professionals. The perpetrator was reported to the police and nothing happened, Why?

He was already engaged with mental health professionals. It didn't work, obviously, but that happens. No-one expects a surgeon to save everyone that goes on the operating table.

After he was reported to police they interviewed him and found he wasn't a risk. And that's probably where the real failing was, but it's a failing that's a pretty difficult one to solve. What happens when the parents of a person over 18 think he needs real help, because a police interview isn't enough (it's neither in enough depth, nor can they give a professional judgement). But you can't detain the person, because he's an adult and the parents can no longer act on his behalf. It's a tough question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Why? Because the victims are white, likely affluent, and young. the perfect mixture for a story.

Not really. Spree killings always get major coverage. And then you've got the video coverage of the killer beforehand... it shouldn't be too hard to figure out why this is a major story.

 sebster wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
An entitled, self-absorbed, egomaniac with delusions of adequacy. I am fed up of people complaining about "being in the friendzone", or "being a nice guy and getting nowhere". Just because you are nice to someone X number of times does not mean that they owe you sex. Just because you couldn't tell someone that you were interested does not make it their fault you didn't get what you wanted. And because you got rejected it does not give you the right to stab and shoot people.

Exactly.

I read one of the #yes all women things, where a guy was saying this is what happens when you don't give a nice guy a chance... except the girls weren't rejecting a nice guy, they were rejecting a self-obsessed, murderous lunatic. Which kind of gets to the very heart of the issue - most of the self-identified 'nice guys' aren't actually very nice people at all, they're just donkey-caves who think being polite and friendly to a girl for a set period of time entitles them to sex.

I still believe that the best way to tackle these incidents is investment and engagement with mental health professionals. The perpetrator was reported to the police and nothing happened, Why?

He was already engaged with mental health professionals. It didn't work, obviously, but that happens. No-one expects a surgeon to save everyone that goes on the operating table.

After he was reported to police they interviewed him and found he wasn't a risk. And that's probably where the real failing was, but it's a failing that's a pretty difficult one to solve. What happens when the parents of a person over 18 think he needs real help, because a police interview isn't enough (it's neither in enough depth, nor can they give a professional judgement). But you can't detain the person, because he's an adult and the parents can no longer act on his behalf. It's a tough question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Why? Because the victims are white, likely affluent, and young. the perfect mixture for a story.

Not really. Spree killings always get major coverage. And then you've got the video coverage of the killer beforehand... it shouldn't be too hard to figure out why this is a major story.

The shame of it is he even wrote about the police visit and had they had a warrant to look at his room they would have caught him. What's more disturbing is that he was known to the sherif's department from my understanding, In one of the 3 incidents he performed a citizens arrest one of his room mates. Had no problem with a background check sadly. Even then, he clearly had no issue stabbing people. He was clearly a very disturbed individual, I don't much care about his delusions or ideology.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You aren't looking very hard then. It may have died down to be a little more subtle, but sexism against men is still horrifically common(as in the kind that believes men need to get torn down to uplift women's status)

You know what the difference is though? I've heard stories from just about every female friend I have, and a lot of wife's friends, and they will tell me stories about men who felt entitled to sex with them, ranging from the bizarre to the pretty damn scary. And I'd hazard a guess that the ones I haven't heard such stories from is simply because it hasn't come up, not because the stories aren't there.

On the other hand, I have a lot more male friends, and I know of exactly one time that one of them had an negative incident with a feminist, and that was more annoying than anything else.

One culture is simply a lot more common and a lot more dangerous than the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 friendlycommissar wrote:
Basically the fundamental assumptions of feminism only make sense to people who fundamentally dislike men.

You're using one particular kind of feminism to sum up what is really a very diverse range of ideas.

I mean, if someone believes that women ought to earn the same as men and there's a problem with women being kept out of boardrooms and public office, then there's a feminist but there's nothing about those ideas that requires them to fundamentally dislike men.

As someone who prides himself on being intelligent as far as how the world works, yet has no concept of how people work, this thread has taught me that it's okay to militantly oppose people who may condone what could be perceived as racism, but still what some interpret as feminism is terrible.

People are interesting. Sometimes I wonder if we maybe give hotsauce too much crap.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Everyone should be a humanist, not a feminist. Wider scope.

Everyone should be a universalist because then about not just human but all liviing thing. Wider scope. Also fething useless.

If someone is a genuine humanist, then once they realise that there is an issue in which some people have to deal with specific problems and get marginalised simply because they are women, then they become feminists automatically. The only issue would be if they're claiming to be humanist in order to claim some kind of higher moral standing in order to ignore the specific issues that women have.

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You aren't looking very hard then. It may have died down to be a little more subtle, but sexism against men is still horrifically common(as in the kind that believes men need to get torn down to uplift women's status)

You know what the difference is though? I've heard stories from just about every female friend I have, and a lot of wife's friends, and they will tell me stories about men who felt entitled to sex with them, ranging from the bizarre to the pretty damn scary. And I'd hazard a guess that the ones I haven't heard such stories from is simply because it hasn't come up, not because the stories aren't there.

On the other hand, I have a lot more male friends, and I know of exactly one time that one of them had an negative incident with a feminist, and that was more annoying than anything else.

Certainly its prevalent, and definitely a problem. But I wouldn't say this is a misogynist problem. Its an entitlement problem, which has a direct and obvious symptom. Certain people may feel entitled to sex, and guys may be more able and likely to act upon that sense of entitlement.

Its a responsibility of all guys to hold themselves in check.

One culture is simply a lot more common and a lot more dangerous than the other.

Common, yes.

More dangerous, depends on what you qualify as dangerous. I would consider those trying to implement a mirror of past societies where men definitely did dominate women, but reversing the roles, to be highly dangerous. Ideologically speaking.

I guess you can say its more dangerous simply because its more common, but I think that shouldn't prevent us from realizing that the other is also very dangerous. Its like saying a lion is more dangerous than a rattlesnake.

 friendlycommissar wrote:
Please don't call me "disturbing," that's really unfair. You are constructing a straw man. I have made my position very clear: Calling people up out of the blue and provoking a conversation with them as an excuse to tell them that you don't consider them good enough to date you is mean.

What is 'provoking a conversation'? That sounds like the way an alien living on earth would describe human culture back to his superiors on Glabthar IV.

 sebster wrote:
You're using one particular kind of feminism to sum up what is really a very diverse range of ideas.

Oh, yes, the Shifting Blob Defense. You can't criticize feminism because feminism isn't anything, it's a vague amorphous mass with no substance. Thus one can recommend feminism and say feminism is good, but one can't criticize feminism or say feminism is bad. <-- SARCASM.

I mean, if someone believes that women ought to earn the same as men and there's a problem with women being kept out of boardrooms and public office, then there's a feminist but there's nothing about those ideas that requires them to fundamentally dislike men.

That's using a ridiculously weak definition of feminism. Everyone believes, or at least claims to believe, that women ought to earn the same as men and there's a problem with women being kept out of boardrooms and public office -- even conservatives believe that. You're talking about someone who is not sexist and believe in fair play. There's nothing about that set of ideas that is uniquely feminist.

Believing nonsense like this:

I read one of the #yes all women things, where a guy was saying this is what happens when you don't give a nice guy a chance... except the girls weren't rejecting a nice guy, they were rejecting a self-obsessed, murderous lunatic. Which kind of gets to the very heart of the issue - most of the self-identified 'nice guys' aren't actually very nice people at all, they're just donkey-caves who think being polite and friendly to a girl for a set period of time entitles them to sex.

That's feminism.

I mean what the hell dude? You are seriously going to draw a line from guys feeling bent out of shape over being rejected and this "self-obsessed, murderous lunatic?" Only someone who thinks really poorly of men finds an idea like that reasonable. Read this story. Oh hey, a woman got rejected as a friend on Facebook and freaked out so much she set this couple's house on fire with them in it. Hey, let me spin this into some inane theory about how women feel entitled to people's time and get violent and psychotic when they are rejected. This totally proves that women be crazy!

Everybody a ticking time bomb. Difference is how you go "off".

 Grey Templar wrote:

 sebster wrote:

One culture is simply a lot more common and a lot more dangerous than the other.

Common, yes.

More dangerous, depends on what you qualify as dangerous. I would consider those trying to implement a mirror of past societies where men definitely did dominate women, but reversing the roles, to be highly dangerous. Ideologically speaking.

I guess you can say its more dangerous simply because its more common, but I think that shouldn't prevent us from realizing that the other is also very dangerous. Its like saying a lion is more dangerous than a rattlesnake.

Kate Beaton made a comic about that exact problem.

 friendlycommissar wrote:
While women lag behind in the highest level of leadership, such as corporate executive and senators, women don't lag behind in any economic sense since all of those men in power have wives who live in luxury.

Holy crap that is a thing that someone actually thinks.

 sebster wrote:

 friendlycommissar wrote:
Please don't call me "disturbing," that's really unfair. You are constructing a straw man. I have made my position very clear: Calling people up out of the blue and provoking a conversation with them as an excuse to tell them that you don't consider them good enough to date you is mean.

What is 'provoking a conversation'? That sounds like the way an alien living on earth would describe human culture back to his superiors on Glabthar IV.

Dude, seriously? Why you gotta be so rude?

You speak English right? You know what it means to provoke something? You know what a conversation is? So work it out then.

Cause this sounds like a really passive aggressive way of calling me weird or something, which is against the forum rules. Why don't you try to have some respect?

Quiet Sebster your rocking my "zen" of reading

I did 23 years in Federal service and made over 40K towards the end...
My wife does 7 years and making over 110K...

I started again in Federal service and making a little over 30K....

text removed.

Reds8n

The most ostentatiously privileged housewife is still a housewife.

Oooh, what if she's black?

 Crablezworth wrote:
The shame of it is he even wrote about the police visit and had they had a warrant to look at his room they would have caught him. What's more disturbing is that he was known to the sherif's department from my understanding, In one of the 3 incidents he performed a citizens arrest one of his room mates. Had no problem with a background check sadly. Even then, he clearly had no issue stabbing people. He was clearly a very disturbed individual, I don't much care about his delusions or ideology.

Ah, that's right, I'd forgotten about the previous incidents with the police. I didn't know that a warrant would have given the police evidence that could have stopped him - what would they have seen?

Anyhow, it seems that too often people lurch in to one political position or another, whether its guns or attitudes towards women or anything else, but the conversation about whether better systems might have increases the chance of stopping this before it happened. Obviously there's limits on what can be done, but a talk about what those limits are and how we could develop better systems within those limits never seems to happen.

There have been 6 people killed and several others injured by this man not worth the breath to mention his name. I say let's confine him to the oblivion he so richly deserves.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Certainly its prevalent, and definitely a problem. But I wouldn't say this is a misogynist problem. Its an entitlement problem, which has a direct and obvious symptom. Certain people may feel entitled to sex, and guys may be more able and likely to act upon that sense of entitlement.

When people feel entitled to sex with a women because they have objectified that women to a large extent, then it's not too practical to remove the issue from misogyny.

Its a responsibility of all guys to hold themselves in check.

I agree, somewhat. I mean, once you get your thinking right on the issue, and genuinely understand that the object of your desire is a person, then it really isn't about keeping yourself in check because there is no urge that needs to be suppressed.

More dangerous, depends on what you qualify as dangerous. I would consider those trying to implement a mirror of past societies where men definitely did dominate women, but reversing the roles, to be highly dangerous. Ideologically speaking.

Yeah, but that's not going to happen. It's as dangerous as those lunatics who want half Florida to secede as part of a grand Hispanic empire. It'd be dangerous if it were a real thing that had any chance of having impact on anything.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be argued against, because like the Hispanic secessionists, they have an impact in making other groups more extreme, and generally upsetting the sensible flow of conversation, but that's about all.

Can you imagine He does the killing then gets out of country and joins the French Foreign Legion

 daedalus wrote:
The most ostentatiously privileged housewife is still a housewife.

Oooh, what if she's black?

What if she's a stay at home dad? Is his life a pointless waste then as well? Because I'll bet not one of you believes that. Who here wants to say that househusbands are wasting their lives, and that being a stay-at-home dad is a poor end for a man? Ann Romney is an avid equestrian and does tremendous amounts of charity work. She is independently wealthy thanks to her father. She has lived in luxury her entire life. My grandmother did the exact same thing. These are not lives of oppression.

If she was black, she likely would have been poor. Because racial discrimination actually does lead to intergenerational poverty. Doesn't work that way with gender, because rich people have daughters, and when rich daughters decide they want to go into the workforce at the highest levels, that's exactly what happens. Women shattered the supposed glass ceiling in one generation - basically as soon as women tried to break the glass ceiling, it broke. That's because it was never real.

 Jihadin wrote:
Can you imagine He does the killing then gets out of country and joins the French Foreign Legion

And then he hooks up with a semi-pleasant British librarian in Egypt and accidentally awakens a mummy who wants to bring about the apocalypse