Feminist Threads, Cue Trolls

[RankStranger]

 

 

Rank, your pet topic was thoroughly covered in the other thread. Why beat a dead horse?

 

Because you're so obviously wrong?  Because it's been so soundly proven by so many sources and you refuse to even acknowledge it?

 

I mean it's the damndest thing.  Didn't you say you were a grad student or something?  You CAN'T be stupid and be a grad student.  Well... I guess my wife has an aunt who has a master's in education- and she IS stupid- but I think it's pretty unlikely.

 

So I'm kinda fascinated by what's going on here.  Is this just denial?  As in you've built this feminist identity and you can't bring yourself to even CONSIDER that some of the ideology might be less than the Gospel Truth?  I mean... that's what's going on with our local Libertarian ideologue- it's not uncommon.  Or can you really, honestly not understand a very simple and well-proven argument?  

 

Seriously- I can't tell.  And that's what fascinates me.

 

I proved my case with data in the other thread. Putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "you're wrong!" won't help.

 

 

All you proved was wishful thinking.  Men work more hours per week on average than women.  They have more years experience than women.  They choose higher paying fields than women.  They take less time off than women.

 

That $0.77 number takes NONE of that into account.

 

Here's a study by an economist at the Federal Reserve showing how and why the 'actual' gender wage gap is MUCH lower than the oft-cited 23%.

 

http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=2160

 

 

Here's a Wall Street Journal article that cites all manner of BLS stats showing that women work fewer hours, have less experience, and chose lower-paying professions (none of which are taken into account in the $0.77 number.  Feel free to look the stats up yourself and confirm:

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472

 

 

And a quick googling yields a pleasant surprise.  Here are some of your own feminists who have concluded that the gender pay gap is FAR less than 23%... and that women may have ALREADY achieved wage equality for equal work.  I'm happy to see that at least SOME feminists are interested in the truth:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

 

 

Oh, and I heard the other day on NPR that young single females are earning MORE than their male counterparts.  Feel free to verify that if you're interested- but I don't think you are.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

Rank, your pet topic was thoroughly covered in the other thread. Why beat a dead horse?

 

Because you're so obviously wrong?  Because it's been so soundly proven by so many sources and you refuse to even acknowledge it?

 

I mean it's the damndest thing.  Didn't you say you were a grad student or something?  You CAN'T be stupid and be a grad student.  Well... I guess my wife has an aunt who has a master's in education- and she IS stupid- but I think it's pretty unlikely.

 

So I'm kinda fascinated by what's going on here.  Is this just denial?  As in you've built this feminist identity and you can't bring yourself to even CONSIDER that some of the ideology might be less than the Gospel Truth?  I mean... that's what's going on with our local Libertarian ideologue- it's not uncommon.  Or can you really, honestly not understand a very simple and well-proven argument?  

 

Seriously- I can't tell.  And that's what fascinates me.

 

I proved my case with data in the other thread. Putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "you're wrong!" won't help.

 

 

All you proved was wishful thinking.  Men work more hours per week on average than women.  They have more years experience than women.  They choose higher paying fields than women.  They take less time off than women.

 

That $0.77 number takes NONE of that into account.

 

Here's a study by an economist at the Federal Reserve showing how and why the 'actual' gender wage gap is MUCH lower than the oft-cited 23%.

 

http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=2160

 

 

Here's a Wall Street Journal article that cites all manner of BLS stats showing that women work fewer hours, have less experience, and chose lower-paying professions (none of which are taken into account in the $0.77 number.  Feel free to look the stats up yourself and confirm:

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472

 

 

And a quick googling yields a pleasant surprise.  Here are some of your own feminists who have concluded that the gender pay gap is FAR less than 23%... and that women may have ALREADY achieved wage equality for equal work.  I'm happy to see that at least SOME feminists are interested in the truth:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

 

 

Oh, and I heard the other day on NPR that young single females are earning MORE than their male counterparts.  Feel free to verify that if you're interested- but I don't think you are.

 

I already refuted every point that you are making on the other thread. I'm not doing it twice.

[RankStranger]

 

 

 

 

Rank, your pet topic was thoroughly covered in the other thread. Why beat a dead horse?

 

Because you're so obviously wrong?  Because it's been so soundly proven by so many sources and you refuse to even acknowledge it?

 

I mean it's the damndest thing.  Didn't you say you were a grad student or something?  You CAN'T be stupid and be a grad student.  Well... I guess my wife has an aunt who has a master's in education- and she IS stupid- but I think it's pretty unlikely.

 

So I'm kinda fascinated by what's going on here.  Is this just denial?  As in you've built this feminist identity and you can't bring yourself to even CONSIDER that some of the ideology might be less than the Gospel Truth?  I mean... that's what's going on with our local Libertarian ideologue- it's not uncommon.  Or can you really, honestly not understand a very simple and well-proven argument?  

 

Seriously- I can't tell.  And that's what fascinates me.

 

I proved my case with data in the other thread. Putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "you're wrong!" won't help.

 

 

All you proved was wishful thinking.  Men work more hours per week on average than women.  They have more years experience than women.  They choose higher paying fields than women.  They take less time off than women.

 

That $0.77 number takes NONE of that into account.

 

Here's a study by an economist at the Federal Reserve showing how and why the 'actual' gender wage gap is MUCH lower than the oft-cited 23%.

 

http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=2160

 

 

Here's a Wall Street Journal article that cites all manner of BLS stats showing that women work fewer hours, have less experience, and chose lower-paying professions (none of which are taken into account in the $0.77 number.  Feel free to look the stats up yourself and confirm:

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472

 

 

And a quick googling yields a pleasant surprise.  Here are some of your own feminists who have concluded that the gender pay gap is FAR less than 23%... and that women may have ALREADY achieved wage equality for equal work.  I'm happy to see that at least SOME feminists are interested in the truth:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

 

 

Oh, and I heard the other day on NPR that young single females are earning MORE than their male counterparts.  Feel free to verify that if you're interested- but I don't think you are.

 

I already refuted every point that you are making on the other thread. I'm not doing it twice.

 

 

Repeating an incorrect claim that the $0.77 number takes these factors into account is not "refuting".  It's a refusal to look at the evidence.

 

Pointing to pay disparities within the same job description is not "refuting".  It's a refusal to look at the evidence.

 

I really wonder what you think you're accomplishing here in the name of Feminism.  Because I'm not the only previously ambivalent party around here who's been convinced lately that many of ya'll are not truly interested in the truth.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

 

 

Rank, your pet topic was thoroughly covered in the other thread. Why beat a dead horse?

 

Because you're so obviously wrong?  Because it's been so soundly proven by so many sources and you refuse to even acknowledge it?

 

I mean it's the damndest thing.  Didn't you say you were a grad student or something?  You CAN'T be stupid and be a grad student.  Well... I guess my wife has an aunt who has a master's in education- and she IS stupid- but I think it's pretty unlikely.

 

So I'm kinda fascinated by what's going on here.  Is this just denial?  As in you've built this feminist identity and you can't bring yourself to even CONSIDER that some of the ideology might be less than the Gospel Truth?  I mean... that's what's going on with our local Libertarian ideologue- it's not uncommon.  Or can you really, honestly not understand a very simple and well-proven argument?  

 

Seriously- I can't tell.  And that's what fascinates me.

 

I proved my case with data in the other thread. Putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "you're wrong!" won't help.

 

 

All you proved was wishful thinking.  Men work more hours per week on average than women.  They have more years experience than women.  They choose higher paying fields than women.  They take less time off than women.

 

That $0.77 number takes NONE of that into account.

 

Here's a study by an economist at the Federal Reserve showing how and why the 'actual' gender wage gap is MUCH lower than the oft-cited 23%.

 

http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=2160

 

 

Here's a Wall Street Journal article that cites all manner of BLS stats showing that women work fewer hours, have less experience, and chose lower-paying professions (none of which are taken into account in the $0.77 number.  Feel free to look the stats up yourself and confirm:

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472

 

 

And a quick googling yields a pleasant surprise.  Here are some of your own feminists who have concluded that the gender pay gap is FAR less than 23%... and that women may have ALREADY achieved wage equality for equal work.  I'm happy to see that at least SOME feminists are interested in the truth:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

 

 

Oh, and I heard the other day on NPR that young single females are earning MORE than their male counterparts.  Feel free to verify that if you're interested- but I don't think you are.

 

I already refuted every point that you are making on the other thread. I'm not doing it twice.

 

 

Repeating an incorrect claim that the $0.77 number takes these factors into account is not "refuting".  It's a refusal to look at the evidence.

 

Pointing to pay disparities within the same job description is not "refuting".  It's a refusal to look at the evidence.

 

I really wonder what you think you're accomplishing here in the name of Feminism.  Because I'm not the only previously ambivalent party around here who's been convinced lately that many of ya'll are not truly interested in the truth.

 

You are being so distorting and disingenuous I'm concluding that this is a sophisticated troll. I'm not in the mood to be trolled, and I don't have the patience to correct all of your erroneous statements. Believe what you want, I don't have the energy to care.

[RankStranger]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rank, your pet topic was thoroughly covered in the other thread. Why beat a dead horse?

 

 

Because you're so obviously wrong?  Because it's been so soundly proven by so many sources and you refuse to even acknowledge it?

 

I mean it's the damndest thing.  Didn't you say you were a grad student or something?  You CAN'T be stupid and be a grad student.  Well... I guess my wife has an aunt who has a master's in education- and she IS stupid- but I think it's pretty unlikely.

 

So I'm kinda fascinated by what's going on here.  Is this just denial?  As in you've built this feminist identity and you can't bring yourself to even CONSIDER that some of the ideology might be less than the Gospel Truth?  I mean... that's what's going on with our local Libertarian ideologue- it's not uncommon.  Or can you really, honestly not understand a very simple and well-proven argument?  

 

Seriously- I can't tell.  And that's what fascinates me.

I proved my case with data in the other thread. Putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "you're wrong!" won't help.

 

All you proved was wishful thinking.  Men work more hours per week on average than women.  They have more years experience than women.  They choose higher paying fields than women.  They take less time off than women.

 

That $0.77 number takes NONE of that into account.

 

Here's a study by an economist at the Federal Reserve showing how and why the 'actual' gender wage gap is MUCH lower than the oft-cited 23%.

 

http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=2160

 

 

Here's a Wall Street Journal article that cites all manner of BLS stats showing that women work fewer hours, have less experience, and chose lower-paying professions (none of which are taken into account in the $0.77 number.  Feel free to look the stats up yourself and confirm:

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472

 

 

And a quick googling yields a pleasant surprise.  Here are some of your own feminists who have concluded that the gender pay gap is FAR less than 23%... and that women may have ALREADY achieved wage equality for equal work.  I'm happy to see that at least SOME feminists are interested in the truth:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

 

 

Oh, and I heard the other day on NPR that young single females are earning MORE than their male counterparts.  Feel free to verify that if you're interested- but I don't think you are.

I already refuted every point that you are making on the other thread. I'm not doing it twice.

 

Repeating an incorrect claim that the $0.77 number takes these factors into account is not "refuting".  It's a refusal to look at the evidence.

 

Pointing to pay disparities within the same job description is not "refuting".  It's a refusal to look at the evidence.

 

I really wonder what you think you're accomplishing here in the name of Feminism.  Because I'm not the only previously ambivalent party around here who's been convinced lately that many of ya'll are not truly interested in the truth.

You are being so distorting and disingenuous I'm concluding that this is a sophisticated troll. I'm not in the mood to be trolled, and I don't have the patience to correct all of your erroneous statements. Believe what you want, I don't have the energy to care.

Bow out if you like- that's your prerogative. But I would honestly appreciate it if you could spell out where I'm being disingenuous. Because I don't see it. That's the kind of accusation that warrants an explanation dontchya think?

 

I've been pretty thorough and polite with you here- if you think this is trolling... then I can only wonder how you get by in the real world. Or is this just a knee-jerk response so you can dismiss me without looking at some uncomfortable and well-documented facts?

[thereisnoperfect]

Well, Orbit, this thread has certainly proven your assertions in the OP. 

 

For myself, while I still would like to help nudge this place in a positive direction, this thread is just an illustration of how derailing and trolling tactics work, and I'm not going to waste my time and stress myself out. The big lesson I'm learning is that around here I should stick to the threads that are most about the ex-c experience and not wander too far beyond--there's too little moderation, too little good faith, and it just doesn't feel like a safe and productive place to have productive discussions. And there are some things I like about this place, and I'd rather focus on that, at least for now.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

I really wonder what you think you're accomplishing here in the name of Feminism.  Because I'm not the only previously ambivalent party around here who's been convinced lately that many of ya'll are not truly interested in the truth

Classic Rank tactics.  He always pulls out this little trick when he's not achieving his goal.  He was never ambivalent about feminism.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Well, Orbit, this thread has certainly proven your assertions in the OP. 

 

For myself, while I still would like to help nudge this place in a positive direction, this thread is just an illustration of how derailing and trolling tactics work, and I'm not going to waste my time and stress myself out. The big lesson I'm learning is that around here I should stick to the threads that are most about the ex-c experience and not wander too far beyond--there's too little moderation, too little good faith, and it just doesn't feel like a safe and productive place to have productive discussions. And there are some things I like about this place, and I'd rather focus on that, at least for now.

I totally agree with your perceptions.  I appreciated your posts, they were awesome.

[RankStranger]

 

 

 

I really wonder what you think you're accomplishing here in the name of Feminism.  Because I'm not the only previously ambivalent party around here who's been convinced lately that many of ya'll are not truly interested in the truth

Classic Rank tactics.  He always pulls out this little trick when he's not achieving his goal.  He was never ambivalent about feminism.

 

 

Must be nice having psychic powers.

[RankStranger]

Well, Orbit, this thread has certainly proven your assertions in the OP. 

 

For myself, while I still would like to help nudge this place in a positive direction, this thread is just an illustration of how derailing and trolling tactics work, and I'm not going to waste my time and stress myself out. The big lesson I'm learning is that around here I should stick to the threads that are most about the ex-c experience and not wander too far beyond--there's too little moderation, too little good faith, and it just doesn't feel like a safe and productive place to have productive discussions. And there are some things I like about this place, and I'd rather focus on that, at least for now.

 

Yeah, it's a damn shame that some people have the audacity to disagree and demand evidence.  

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

Well, Orbit, this thread has certainly proven your assertions in the OP. 

 

For myself, while I still would like to help nudge this place in a positive direction, this thread is just an illustration of how derailing and trolling tactics work, and I'm not going to waste my time and stress myself out. The big lesson I'm learning is that around here I should stick to the threads that are most about the ex-c experience and not wander too far beyond--there's too little moderation, too little good faith, and it just doesn't feel like a safe and productive place to have productive discussions. And there are some things I like about this place, and I'd rather focus on that, at least for now.

 

Yeah, it's a damn shame that some people have the audacity to disagree and demand evidence.  

 

LOL!  Not 5 minutes ago you were caught out on another thread providing anecdotes about your career instead of any research to support a claim that "women are not good at mechanical work".  Sheesh.

[RankStranger]

 

 

Well, Orbit, this thread has certainly proven your assertions in the OP. 

 

For myself, while I still would like to help nudge this place in a positive direction, this thread is just an illustration of how derailing and trolling tactics work, and I'm not going to waste my time and stress myself out. The big lesson I'm learning is that around here I should stick to the threads that are most about the ex-c experience and not wander too far beyond--there's too little moderation, too little good faith, and it just doesn't feel like a safe and productive place to have productive discussions. And there are some things I like about this place, and I'd rather focus on that, at least for now.

 

Yeah, it's a damn shame that some people have the audacity to disagree and demand evidence.  

 

LOL!  Not 5 minutes ago you were caught out on another thread providing anecdotes about your career instead of any research to support a claim that "women are not good at mechanical work".  Sheesh.

 

 

I was not "caught" at anything.  There are no such studies- I never claimed there were any such studies.  I never claimed I was doing scientific research.  I offered my own experience- pretty damn thorough experience- in mechanical fields.  That's my evidence.  You don't have to accept it- but it's the truth just the same.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

Well, Orbit, this thread has certainly proven your assertions in the OP. 

 

For myself, while I still would like to help nudge this place in a positive direction, this thread is just an illustration of how derailing and trolling tactics work, and I'm not going to waste my time and stress myself out. The big lesson I'm learning is that around here I should stick to the threads that are most about the ex-c experience and not wander too far beyond--there's too little moderation, too little good faith, and it just doesn't feel like a safe and productive place to have productive discussions. And there are some things I like about this place, and I'd rather focus on that, at least for now.

 

Yeah, it's a damn shame that some people have the audacity to disagree and demand evidence.  

 

LOL!  Not 5 minutes ago you were caught out on another thread providing anecdotes about your career instead of any research to support a claim that "women are not good at mechanical work".  Sheesh.

 

 

I was not "caught" at anything.  There are no such studies- I never claimed there were any such studies.  I never claimed I was doing scientific research.  I offered my own experience- pretty damn thorough experience- in mechanical fields.  That's my evidence.  You don't have to accept it- but it's the truth just the same.

 

You expect others to provide more than anecdotal evidence for their claims yet that standard somehow doesn't apply to your own claims.  

[RankStranger]

 

 

 

 

Well, Orbit, this thread has certainly proven your assertions in the OP. 

 

For myself, while I still would like to help nudge this place in a positive direction, this thread is just an illustration of how derailing and trolling tactics work, and I'm not going to waste my time and stress myself out. The big lesson I'm learning is that around here I should stick to the threads that are most about the ex-c experience and not wander too far beyond--there's too little moderation, too little good faith, and it just doesn't feel like a safe and productive place to have productive discussions. And there are some things I like about this place, and I'd rather focus on that, at least for now.

 

Yeah, it's a damn shame that some people have the audacity to disagree and demand evidence.  

 

LOL!  Not 5 minutes ago you were caught out on another thread providing anecdotes about your career instead of any research to support a claim that "women are not good at mechanical work".  Sheesh.

 

 

I was not "caught" at anything.  There are no such studies- I never claimed there were any such studies.  I never claimed I was doing scientific research.  I offered my own experience- pretty damn thorough experience- in mechanical fields.  That's my evidence.  You don't have to accept it- but it's the truth just the same.

 

You expect others to provide more than anecdotal evidence for their claims yet that standard somehow doesn't apply to your own claims.  

 

 

Fine.  Here's some stats. 

 

From the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:

 

http://www.oecd.org/std/37964549.pdf

 

Look real closely at those numbers and understand what they mean.  Those aren't percentages in that chart- those are RATIOS.  Here's the chart:

 

 

You won't find "diesel mechanic" on that list.  But look at the column on the right.  Those numbers are:

 

80.2 men per woman

64.8 men per woman

52.9 men per woman

35.4 men per woman

35.3 men per woman

30.5 men per woman

24.5 men per woman

23.1 men per woman

21.7 men per woman

15.9 men per woman

 

 

 

This is what the mechanical/dirty/dangerous/difficult occupations I describe look like.  They're OVERWHELMINGLY staffed by men, and the numbers unequivocally show that.

 

Happy now?

 

Oh, and BTW- look at the column on the left.  See how women OVERWHELMINGLY outnumber men in verbal and child-care occupations?

 

Again the numbers support my opinion without qualification.

[Vigile]

 

 

Is this the one?

 

https://medium.com/human-parts/a-gentlemens-guide-to-rape-culture-7fc86c50dc4c

 

"If you are a man, you are part of rape culture."

 

"But you do perpetuate the attitudes and behaviors commonly referred to as rape culture."

 

"How are you part of rape culture? Well, I hate to say it, but it’s because you’re a man."

 

 

 

I am not imagining that. He really is blaming me because of the way I was born. I didn't choose to have a Y chromosome.

But not because you are men, as Vigile said, but because you have been bombarded with social messages that impart the values that are part of rape culture. Taken in the context of the entire article, which isn't by a social theorist but a normal dude, he's saying "you need to pay attention to this because you're a man".

This is why we have these headbuts I think. You are telling us the plain words don't mean what we think. That's how all of these discussions have gone. I'll just chalk it up to differences in how men and women process subjective information.

[Deidre]

Holy cow, I just discovered this thread! I need to get out of the off topic section more often.

 

What is the definition of troll though? I always understood it to mean someone who likes to stir the pot, on an internet forum, with no genuine desire for honest discussion. Devisive, but not in a meaningful, or interesting way.

 

I guess there are other definitions for troll. lol

[Vigile]

 

 

 

 

It's an honest effort by one dude to explain this to other dudes. it's not social theory--which of course is written in a more precise way. When thinking about any social theory you need to remember that social theory isn't about you personally. It's about broad patterns that have been observed in society.

 

I don't really have a dog in this fight, nor do I want one. But don't you think that referring to us as "dudes" is at least as sexist as it would be for us to refer to y'all as "chicks"?

Can I get a pass for growing up in Southern California in the 80s?

little levity to lighten the mood round here:

 

In Italy, I was teaching my friends some American slang, including that women are chicks and dancing (among other things) is getting one's freak on. So my friend luca stiltedley piped, I'm dancing with a freaky chicken.

[Vigile]

Well, Orbit, this thread has certainly proven your assertions in the OP.

 

For myself, while I still would like to help nudge this place in a positive direction, this thread is just an illustration of how derailing and trolling tactics work, and I'm not going to waste my time and stress myself out. The big lesson I'm learning is that around here I should stick to the threads that are most about the ex-c experience and not wander too far beyond--there's too little moderation, too little good faith, and it just doesn't feel like a safe and productive place to have productive discussions. And there are some things I like about this place, and I'd rather focus on that, at least for now.

You call disagreement trolling and derailing. I'm more and more convinced this subject is a sacred cow to some. Generally, in my experience, things are sacred cows because adherents don't wish to receive honest scrutiny.

[duderonomy]

There would be no feminists without man.  Face it.  They need us. They are built upon us.  Let them have their head, to use a horse racing term, and let's see if they win!

[midniterider]

Holy cow, I just discovered this thread! I need to get out of the off topic section more often.

 

What is the definition of troll though? I always understood it to mean someone who likes to stir the pot, on an internet forum, with no genuine desire for honest discussion. Devisive, but not in a meaningful, or interesting way.

 

I guess there are other definitions for troll. lol

 

Troll is a pot stirrer who has no stake or interest other than stirring the pot like you say.

Though troll is sometimes used when the strong minded are unable to get another strong minded opponent to back down.

[mymistake]

Well, Orbit, this thread has certainly proven your assertions in the OP. 

 

For myself, while I still would like to help nudge this place in a positive direction, this thread is just an illustration of how derailing and trolling tactics work, and I'm not going to waste my time and stress myself out. The big lesson I'm learning is that around here I should stick to the threads that are most about the ex-c experience and not wander too far beyond--there's too little moderation, too little good faith, and it just doesn't feel like a safe and productive place to have productive discussions. And there are some things I like about this place, and I'd rather focus on that, at least for now.

 

 

It isn't that hard.  Accept that there are alternative points of view.  Don't write off people as trolls simply because they have a different perspective or they want to learn.  Have a dialog with them.  Do not demand that they remain silent.  Find out what they see.  Productive conversations are possible.

[midniterider]

So I'm kinda fascinated by what's going on here.  Is this just denial?  As in you've built this feminist identity and you can't bring yourself to even CONSIDER that some of the ideology might be less than the Gospel Truth?  I mean... that's what's going on with our local Libertarian ideologue- it's not uncommon.  Or can you really, honestly not understand a very simple and well-proven argument?  

 

Seriously- I can't tell.  And that's what fascinates me.

 

 

 

If the idea of rape culture is above criticism then it has become someone's new Jesus. I've seen the rabid Christians here who claim the infallibility of Jesus. It's an extreme and uncompromising mental disease to never admit one's view or concept about something might be imperfect. Someone here did have a good point that maybe the men and the women just aren't communicating / understanding each other on this topic because men and women think differently. There may also be the gender bias that is inescapable for both our genders.

 

Btw, my idea about rape culture, what it is and isnt, whether it exists or not is imperfect. And the ideas put forth in articles about it are imperfect. Everyone exaggerates... (haha)

 

Ok, have at it!

[midniterider]

Well, Orbit, this thread has certainly proven your assertions in the OP. 

 

 

Feminist threads cue discussion, anyway. :-)

[Vigile]

 

Well, Orbit, this thread has certainly proven your assertions in the OP.

 

 

Feminist threads cue discussion, anyway. :-)

It's what I like about this board, but understand is uncomfortable for some. All ideas are challenged. If they have merit, they survive, if not, they get nailed to the wall. Feminism is just our latest obsession. Makes sense that those of us who have been duped by ideology would now be vicious critics demanding strong proof and sneering at intellectual dishonesty.

[gall]

 

 

Well, Orbit, this thread has certainly proven your assertions in the OP.

 

Feminist threads cue discussion, anyway. :-)

It's what I like about this board, but understand is uncomfortable for some. All ideas are challenged. If they have merit, they survive, if not, they get nailed to the wall. Feminism is just our latest obsession. Makes sense that those of us who have been duped by ideology would now be vicious critics demanding strong proof and sneering at intellectual dishonesty.

 

 

This is how all ideas everywhere about anything should work. If it has so little merit it cannot withstand discussion both negative and positive the position was weak in the first place. If it will stand it will stand on its own.

 

Feminism is a great topic for this. There are multiple views and sides and many many valued opinions. The only fact I know is that all people are born equal and should have a chance to fuck up on their own or succeed from their labor. Of course it does not always work that way in the end but it is what we are born with. The right to make up our own damn mind.