Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

Recommended Posts

*sigh*

 

tl;dr

 

Feminist: usually has a point... I disagree with some stuff they come up with on occasion but debate can ensue in a civilized manner.  Know the difference between "men" and "fags".

 

Feminazi: may or may not be a feminist, usually claims to be one.  "All men are Taliban", "Stop holding that door open for me, I will NOT have sex with you!!", will go hysterical if you post a sign outside your business saying "Clothes for men and women" because you misspelled "womyn".  You call another male a "cunt", you get accused of supporting rape because you made a vaginal reference in an insulting manner.... in other words, a loony.

 

Anita.... may be a feminist most of the time, but turned gamergate into a true feminazi circus.  If all men were truly so permanently awful to all women in gaming, there wouldn't be so many.  And.... well, a gamer girlfriend, or at least one that CONDONES her man gaming.... if we hate women in games so much, then why are theyso sought after?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 549
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Again, the problem with the Internet is that it presents a public stage for anyone who feels offended by anything. Riothungry press all too happily obliges to get more pageviews on their addridden sit

I like the fact that Nosam said there are sexist men on this board and points to Doro.

I can see that your y and o key are working ok from previous posts, perhaps you are just unsure of the spelling?

More misrepresentation. I'm starting to see a pattern here.

 

Yes, because stating methods of helping protect women is blaming them for being raped. Just like those idiots who got upset by the nail polish that changed colours when in contact with date-rape drugs, you're completely missing the actual point.

His problem was how he went about saying it, which meant that people incapable of understanding metaphors were left thinking they were a bee.

[...]

But those aren't the options. You've made a false dilemma to back up your retarded point. Your attempt to dismiss what Thunderfoot says is based on a lie. So how about you stop hiding behind what idiots say about other people and actually look at what they've said themselves? I know, I know, it won't fit your existing bias and it might upset you, but it may actually make you think for even a second.

 

His stated method to help protect women was that they should fight back more and not act like prey.  The presumption inherent in that statement is that women who have been raped did not do enough to fight off or discourage their attacker, and thus are at least partially at fault for being raped.  That's classic rape apology, as it shifts part of the blame to the victim.  "If only she'd done X, Y, or Z, she probably wouldn't have gotten raped."

 

The people criticizing the nail polish are misguided, as I mentioned when you (or whoever) first brought up that story.  You'll get no argument from me there.  Sadly, if the product does make it to market, I can already see dudes saying that women who don't buy the nail polish and get raped thanks to a date rape drug in their drink are somewhat at fault for their own rape.

 

As for the metaphor, it was pretty easy to understand - "don't act like prey; don't act like a potential victim".  The criticism of it is, apparently, somewhat more difficult to understand, I guess.

 

Finally, I do read, and I do think for myself, and I do form my own arguments.  But maybe I'm doing it wrong.  "Feminazi feminazi feminazi you're a retarded cunt."  Does that look better?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

His stated method to help protect women was that they should fight back more and not act like prey.  The presumption inherent in that statement is that women who have been raped did not do enough to fight off or discourage their attacker, and thus are at least partially at fault for being raped.  That's classic rape apology, as it shifts part of the blame to the victim.  "If only she'd done X, Y, or Z, she probably wouldn't have gotten raped."

You still don't even get what he said, because you've only read some feminazis opinion and not watched his actual video. What he is saying is that there are situations in which behaviour can help you against being targeted by a stranger. He is not saying that people who are raped are then to blame for not using said behaviour. Only that it isn't a problem of all men needing to be taught not to rape it's that there are those who will do it anyway and they have certain buttons that can be pushed (or, in this case, not pushed).

But, of course, you still continue to misrepresent what he says.

 

The people criticizing the nail polish are misguided, as I mentioned when you (or whoever) first brought up that story.  You'll get no argument from me there.  Sadly, if the product does make it to market, I can already see dudes saying that women who don't buy the nail polish and get raped thanks to a date rape drug in their drink are somewhat at fault for their own rape.

And yet here you are calling one person a rape apologist for even daring to imply that there are methods to take to help prevent rape. The exact same thing that nail polish does. Classic logic from one of your kind.

 

As for the metaphor, it was pretty easy to understand - "don't act like prey; don't act like a potential victim".  The criticism of it is, apparently, somewhat more difficult to understand, I guess.

And yet the point still clearly sails over your head. Not surprising, really.

 

Finally, I do read, and I do think for myself, and I do form my own arguments.  But maybe I'm doing it wrong.  "Feminazi feminazi feminazi you're a retarded cunt."  Does that look better?

Don't make me laugh. The bullshit you've spouted can only come from a prick that's done nothing but listen to feminazis. The only 'arguments' you've even managed to half form have been misrepresentations and outright lies. And that's all you'll manage to do because you're in the indefensible position of protecting feminazis. It would make for a nice change if you did start thinking instead of going 'misogynist! rape apologist! holocaust apologist! right winger! victim blamer! small dick! whine, whine whine!'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying that rape prevention should not be solely women's responsability: feminism.

 

Outright opposing any rape prevention measures (for example, ways to detect rape drugs), that's a feminazi point right there.  If your credit card gets RFID scanned, doesn't make it your fault for carrying one, but that piece of tin foil or a factory-made RFID shielding wallet is certainly a good prevention measure.

 

Feminists ask for more education (not slamming a rape victim with bullshit cultural stigmas to add to an already shit experience), harsher penalties, and for the justice system to not be so dismissive of women reporting rape.. I wholly agree, it makes sense.  Forensics' researchers should be looking into new ways to secure a conviction and dismiss the actual false reports more accurately.  Don't know if it's in the "to encourage" list, but it's generally good form to, while in heavy drinking environments, keep the women one cares about (this is for both genders) in their peripheral vision.... then again keep all friends in sight, men do carry about 100 grand worth of kidneys.

 

Feminazis..... not entirely sure how they plan to handle the problem aside from screaming that all men are talibans and must be .... what solution are they proposing other than shunning any and all prevention measures?  Or in the RFID credit card example.... "NO ONE SHOULD NEED TO TINFOIL THEIR WALLETS!!!!!!!!!!"  .... right.. and then... back to robberies still being a potential event....any ideas?  "THIEVES NEED TO STOP STEALING!!!"....right....  Kinda like LOTRO apologists, if everyone shuts the hell up and agrees with their every opinion, that's all that's needed for the problems to go away... right.... 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people still argue with Doro? He's always right, just ask him!

 

His arguements are always valid, anyone that disagrees is a retard, is misquoting, taking things out of context, or just doesn't understand.

 

I remember when I was that age and still knew everything and was always right! Good times!!!!

 

O-)  :O  ^)  ^)  B)  7(8)7  :  :+  :*)  :D  :)  _O-  }:|  :z  *;  :7  ;)  :?  O+  :Y)  :Y

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

About America's Sudden Fascination With Hiring Young Women

Yesterday, when we presented what we thought at the time was "The Strangest Number In Today's Jobs Report" namely the near record surge in workers aged 16-24, which amounted to 528K, or the vast majority of job additions in the month of October...

young%20workers_0.jpg

... we may have been a bit premature.

As it turns out breaking down the job surge from September to October by gender provides an even more peculiar result then an age distribution. Because as the chart below shows, of the 416K jobs added in the 20 and over category, a meager 10% of these went to men: some 90%, or 370,000, went to women! Men aged 20 and over were the recipients of a paltry 48,000 jobs, or 10% of the total increase.

Men%20vs%20Women%2020%20Over_0.jpg

 

So how does one explain America's sudden surge in hiring women, and not just any women, but mostly young ones (because we know from yesterday that the bulk of hiring was in the young, 16-24 age group).

 

 

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-08/about-americas-sudden-fascination-hiring-young-women

Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is why feminists are called Nazi's

 

Joseph Goebbels would be proud at the work you have done

 

 

 

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”
Link to post
Share on other sites

.......but what kind of jobs?

Those graphs sort of hint to something I've suspected ever since I was first aware of this apparent issue of gender pay gap (I know this is employment, not pay, but it links). The usual thing people say is that women earn less than men, but they never get any further into it. That leads the average joe to think 'woman are paid less in the same jobs'. What it really means is that the average woman earns less than the average man, across ALL areas of employment.

Turns out, a number of factors attribute to this perceived pay gap. From women working lower paid jobs like retail, customer service and part-time stuff, to many women taking time away from work to raise their kids. It isn't that people look at a woman and go 'oh we can pay her 10% less than a man for the same job', it's that there are less women working higher paid jobs for one reason or another.

Now what was curious to me were these graphs in terms of this. I've heard that women tend to go for work with more job security than men do, but that means less pay (not like a choice, it's just those jobs tend to have less pay). Which would make me think that women aren't changing jobs that often, so it should show that more men are hired more often than women. But I've got a few ideas as to why this isn't the case.

1. Women are being targeted more often for the sake of hitting gender quotas.

2. Women are finding it harder to hold a long term job now in these lower-paid positions as more and more people fight for them.

3. The positions available suit a woman better than a man.

4. Less lower paid jobs are available now, as most jobs have a 'high skilled' requirement (you know the catch 22 bollocks, 'we need 5 years of experience in this entry level position before we can hire you for this entry level position').

Now, though I've seen the first one in action, I doubt it's the case for such a difference. Second one seems likely, as everyone knows it's getting harder and harder for young people to find jobs entirely. Typically, they turn to retail or low-positioned office work, where more mature women also have their careers. Third is also a possibility, as I find customer service positions tend to fit women better than men, though it goes onto the fourth point. The pool of jobs could potentially be drying up for women who want part-time work to fit around their family, so they're being 'concentrated' into what is left over (i.e. food serving).

Now, it's all speculation really. But when you compare where women work as a majority of employees to the idea that more women are being employed, it sort of makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.......but what kind of jobs?

 

Food%20Service%20jobs_0.jpg

 

MFG%20vs%20Waiters_0.jpg

 

You omitted this part, surely just an over sight on your part, hmmmm, Herr Goebbels?

 

 

I left that out because it is not factually accurate. look at it closely.  The waiters and bartender jobs were only a fraction of the jobs.  This is a  bias of the author, you have to read zero hedge on a regular basis and look closely at the numbers to see this.

 

Also bear in mind in most metro areas in the USA women workers under 40 outnumber males and earn higher pay.  You are seeing the Nazi's coat tail and exploit numbers from 2 generations of older women who still make up the workforce.  Women who came of ages in the 60's and 70's and early 80's are still of working age and they make up a good chunk of the numbers being manipulated to show pay inequality.  

 

in 20 years there is going to be a huge pay and education gap if things keep going the way they are.  But this time men are being left out.  It is pure hate and sexual preference.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Imma take a shot for ol' Doro here... 

 

Also, men tend to get the higher ranked position because... well... 

 

Men are the same person all 52 weeks of the year =P

 

no it is because older men who have worked their way up over the last 30-40 years  were part of a very different workforce in the 60's, 70's and early 80's.  society had different goals and aspirations other roles were valued.  Having children and giving them time was considered good not evil back then and women played this traditional role.  Now we have "over population" and young fertile women need to be distracted as we don't want to bring more people into the world.  

 

There is a war on women but it is not the war you think it is and the people waging it are not the people you think they are.

 

Like i said above, in 20 years, if this society can hold it together that long, you will see things flipped on there head with pay and education. The current sub 40 workforce make up and college graduation trends make this very apparent if you care to see the truth. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those graphs sort of hint to something I've suspected ever since I was first aware of this apparent issue of gender pay gap (I know this is employment, not pay, but it links). The usual thing people say is that women earn less than men, but they never get any further into it. That leads the average joe to think 'woman are paid less in the same jobs'. What it really means is that the average woman earns less than the average man, across ALL areas of employment.

Turns out, a number of factors attribute to this perceived pay gap. From women working lower paid jobs like retail, customer service and part-time stuff, to many women taking time away from work to raise their kids. It isn't that people look at a woman and go 'oh we can pay her 10% less than a man for the same job', it's that there are less women working higher paid jobs for one reason or another.

Now what was curious to me were these graphs in terms of this. I've heard that women tend to go for work with more job security than men do, but that means less pay (not like a choice, it's just those jobs tend to have less pay). Which would make me think that women aren't changing jobs that often, so it should show that more men are hired more often than women. But I've got a few ideas as to why this isn't the case.

1. Women are being targeted more often for the sake of hitting gender quotas.

2. Women are finding it harder to hold a long term job now in these lower-paid positions as more and more people fight for them.

3. The positions available suit a woman better than a man.

4. Less lower paid jobs are available now, as most jobs have a 'high skilled' requirement (you know the catch 22 bollocks, 'we need 5 years of experience in this entry level position before we can hire you for this entry level position').

Now, though I've seen the first one in action, I doubt it's the case for such a difference. Second one seems likely, as everyone knows it's getting harder and harder for young people to find jobs entirely. Typically, they turn to retail or low-positioned office work, where more mature women also have their careers. Third is also a possibility, as I find customer service positions tend to fit women better than men, though it goes onto the fourth point. The pool of jobs could potentially be drying up for women who want part-time work to fit around their family, so they're being 'concentrated' into what is left over (i.e. food serving).

Now, it's all speculation really. But when you compare where women work as a majority of employees to the idea that more women are being employed, it sort of makes sense.

Numbers can be interpreted many ways and people with an agenda will cherry pick the data to suit their argument. A true comparison would be same job salary comparisons between men and women.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Imma take a shot for ol' Doro here... 

 

Also, men tend to get the higher ranked position because... well... 

 

Men are the same person all 52 weeks of the year =P

Really dude? I understand that in your culture it's still permissible to kill a woman if they tarnish your machismo, but can you guys try and get in to the 21st century?. Seems the Americas has its own little Taliban.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Really dude? I understand that in your culture it's still permissible to kill a woman if they tarnish your machismo, but can you guys try and get in to the 21st century?. Seems the Americas has its own little Taliban.

 

Don't be such a bandwagon-jumping c-word.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really dude? I understand that in your culture it's still permissible to kill a woman if they tarnish your machismo, but can you guys try and get in to the 21st century?. Seems the Americas has its own little Taliban.

To be fair on him, he's got a point. The majority of women in my office are nuts around about that time (yeah, they freak out so much they often have to explain it)... then again, most of those are nuts anyway so it may just exacerbate it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The usual thing people say is that women earn less than men, but they never get any further into it. That leads the average joe to think 'woman are paid less in the same jobs'. What it really means is that the average woman earns less than the average man, across ALL areas of employment.

 

Sorry, but this is so wrong I need to comment. Many people point out that women make less than men in the exact same job. You can't just make it up that this is only for different jobs. Of course that is a factor if you look at over all earnings men vs. women. But overall earnings in men vs. women is obvious. Just like earnings difference in adults vs. babies. It is obvious. No one is trying to point out that more men work than women, or that men make more money.

 

It is laughable to think that every time someone said women get paid less it is because they work different jobs. It has nothing to do with this: women earning less than men for doing the exact same work. 

You need a better excuse to explain away this.

 

Here is some information. Have fun trying to argue that the US government (Department of Labor) is lying or wrong on their data.

http://social.dol.gov/blog/myth-busting-the-pay-gap/

 

"MYTH: There is no such thing as the gender pay gap – legitimate differences between men and women cause the gap in pay, not discrimination.

REALITY: Decades of research shows a gender gap in pay even after factors like the kind of work performed and qualifications (education and experience) are taken into account. These studies consistently conclude that discrimination is the best explanation of the remaining difference in pay. Economists generally attribute about 40% of the pay gap to discrimination – making about 60% explained by differences between workers or their jobs. However, even the “explained” differences between men and women might be more complicated. For example: If high school girls are discouraged from taking the math and science classes that lead to high-paying STEM jobs, shouldn’t we in some way count that as a lost equal earnings opportunity? In other words, no matter how you slice the data, pay discrimination is a real and persistent problem that continues to shortchange American women and their families.

 

 

Did I mention that you and others are trying to deny or minimize sexism, or say it does not exist. As in, "there is no discrimination against women in employment. Pay differences are only because they work different jobs." That is wrong.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be such a bandwagon-jumping c-word.

1) Go fuck yourself.

 

2) How am I a bandwagon jumper?

 

3) Do you know me and know my beliefs?

To be fair on him, he's got a point. The majority of women in my office are nuts around about that time (yeah, they freak out so much they often have to explain it)... then again, most of those are nuts anyway so it may just exacerbate it.

Yes, because men NEVER freak out and act unreasonable.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Go fuck yourself.

 

2) How am I a bandwagon jumper?

 

3) Do you know me and know my beliefs?

Yes, because men NEVER freak out and act unreasonable.

 

Yes. you jumped on the "let's accuse Doro of being a misogynist" bandwagon. You also jumped on the "let's call Ardraug names because he's mexican" bandwagon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...