Printable View
Someday soon the white man shall cede the solemn duty of raping the :daisy: out of his women to the subhuman mud creatures, who he is oddly certain don't have superior genes.
Those stupid, stupid, women who are much worse than men at everything cool and who don't have a clue just how good they have it here by our side (though they should definitely have it less good).
I didn't know Trump's rhetoric level was so common in Sweden.
The things Sweden invented and was overlooked for, fascinating.
If you read my post carefully you couldn't have missed the words "in my experience". I teach University students and due to the type of my department about 90% of them are female. The scarce male ones are 80-90% dumb (to use your terminology) while among females the percentage of dumbness is about 50-60.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
As for history, I guess it is unfair to compare the achievements of sexes since women (as a group, not considering singular outstanding individuals) are "out for achievement" for a much shorter span. It is like comparing Brazilian and USAnian (to use your terminology) national football teams.
Dumbness as in not capable of comprehending or as in choosing ignorance by focusing on irrelevancies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
In the UK, White Males are a minority in University due to under performing academically and other key factors.
https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...-thinktank-men
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...niversity.html
https://www.offa.org.uk/universities...tish-students/
Seems to be a trend in the USA too...
https://www.theatlantic.com/educatio...nority/536103/
Sometimes one of the two, sometimes both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Here's a look at the Wests grand experiment since the end of WW2.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...orkplaces.html
Should we just admit that "men in the workplace" was just a bad idea?
Or is it perhaps, simply the reaction of all apes given power and authority?
Remember the days when a woman's place was in the kitchen?
I don't.
Feminism in control.
Placental mammals mean one parent has to carry the offspring. The greater the burden between the genders, the greater the difference. Our babies have proportionally massive heads and come out under-developed. This again means that the lactating parent has to spend more time nurturing.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
~:smoking:
That's the great vulnerability that admits the subjugation of women, but we can stand to cut against the grain.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Indeed. And if he has children and gets divorced, the fight he will have to be a parent will be vastly in excess of what the mother has to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Those who went to private schools have greater advantage than those that didn't. Those whose parents didn't go to University and do not see the point have it tougher.
There is no facet of the world that any two people are equal.
~:smoking:
What you say is true. What now?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Sort of my point to what I quoted...Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Back to the topic - some times in some places yes. On average it still has some way to go.
~:smoking:
What ever happened to cause you to separate from your wife in the first place? Always made me curious especially as you providing her with child support is a sore point for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Bit personal, that?
I suppose the question is whether we need "Feminism" or whether we've come far enough that we can just accept women should be equal and move on as a society. If we accept women should be equal then we no longer need "Feminism" to tackle inequality.
That could go like when we thought we wouldn't need Nazi hunters anymore and now the Nazis are everywhere.
Or like when we thought we wouldn't need unions anymore and wage slavery returned.
Every time conservatives say we don't need something they don't like anymore, it's just a ruse for reactionist measures to be implemented again.
Even apart from that, women aren't equal in society yet. That will more likely be the case once they have more space in the institutions of government/power, including in corporations. That is not to say they have to have 50%. http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do...ts-and-figures
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/...in-leadership/
~20% seems a bit low though. Especially if you combine it with the reports about men in corporate leadership positions abusing them.
Always easy to say that maybe they're less ambitious, perhaps they're less ambitious after getting abused by their bosses.
I mean to be fair, the Nazis that were hunted a few decades ago are not the same ones of today. The fight evolved with time. Same goes for feminism. There are new fights today that feminists of 20 years ago probably would not have imagined.
It is his choice to answer, but it would help give context to why it is such a sore point. I could fabricate twenty different reasons easily, but that won't increase understanding if none of those situations are applicable. It is also difficult to engage, as I would have to make assumptions on what happened which might be more offensive to Rory than the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Could also say I am curious with your post. You have previously stated on this topic that you believe in traditional gender roles and that a woman's place is in the kitchen and as a mother, taking care of the household, with the man being the sole provider. Have you since embraced feminism yourself?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Sorry, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Pretty sure I never said that. I have said that in the first few years of life I think most children benefit more from their mothers than their fathers. I have also observed that whilst women wake when their babies cry in the night men quite often don't. I know one friend who would insist on his wife waking him because he would always sleep through their son crying and she wouldn't. As I recall her response was that it was pointless for them both to literally lose sleep over it.
As regards Rory's personal situation, he's a big boy but I would have thought it he wanted to share he would have, and as you note it's a sore point.
If these are fights feminists never imagined, are they still feminist fights?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Was feminism not historically ambitious enough, or is it the case that "feminism" is now a lobbyist group as opposed to a genuine civil rights movement?
There does seem to be an assumption today that everyone has a right not to be offended and any offence caused is always grievous and cripplying.
The current sexual harassment scandal engulfing Westminster has now caught Damien Green, Theresa May's Deputy - he's accused of briefly touching a woman's knee and a year later telling her she looked good in a corset and inviting her out for a drink via text. He's apparently a friend of her father.
Is that sort of behaviour appropriate? No, certainly not, but I'm not convinced it can be called "sexual harassment" either, and the knee touch was apparently so fleeting even the alleged victim says it was "almost deniable".
There is a danger, I think, that we can create an environment where we take behaviour which should be deemed inappropriate and we elevate it to an extent that we end up making it much worse than it is for the recipient.
In this case I'm a bit confused why this girl didn't tell her father - I imagine if he's known his daughter was being "admired in a corset" he'd have knocked Green's block off.
Article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...dvance-female/
Well, "No plan survives contact with the enemy.", so it's not entirely unheard of that a movement doesn't die down right away after its first goal. Perhaps that is because movements tend to focus on a big, very important goal first, which doesn't mean they don't have more goals for later. And perhaps solving the initial problems makes the others become more visible as their relative impact grows with the removal of much bigger issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I'd see it a bit like a logarithmic function that makes more progress in the beginning and then continues with smaller steps until a certain ceiling (equality) is reached. I also won't doubt that some goals espoused by some feminists are about superiority or just going too far, but that doesn't automatically make all goals of feminism wrong. The goals should be judged individually and blanket statements can't do all of them justice.
Got as far as Nov 2014 then gave up looking for informational purposes. I remember you expressing a viewpoint similar to that as a proponent of traditional gender roles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Not that it matters as you have confirmed you no longer hold that position (which I am pleased about) and I won't hold you to it to defend it.
I did find this, where you did express the view point.
Actually, it does matter because I say I never expressed such a viewpoint, which is entirely different from saying I "no longer" hold such a viewpoint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
It is much more likely that you either misunderstood me, or you are miss-remembering and conflating my views with someone else's. In any case, I would say that having admitted you can turn up no evidence to the contrary you will, perforce, have to accept that you miss-represented my opinion on the matter.
And now for the Kevin Spacey one...Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irMSNXrgN_U
She left without notice one morning. I put him in his buggy and waved him goodbye. I have no idea why she left. Was everything perfect?No. But to vanish without warning, without ultimatum with a 6 month old child? The reasons kept changing. I begged. I pleaded. I asked for counselling. I did not see my son for c. 8 months. I had no idea if he was alive or dead. I had no idea where he was. The police did nothing. Many nights I cried myself to sleep since I was so worried he was dead. His cot was next to my bed but I couldn't bear to look at it nor dismantle it. My brother had to come and help me dismantle it. Has it scarred me...? Why, yes it has!Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
The woman's refuge gave her several pointers and phrases to raise "concerns" at court to delay seeing him. I missed his first birthday. She made several accusations - none found to be true. Her conduct has raised several concerns with Social Services but none enough to let me have my son full time - or more time when it is not convenient.
She's taken him out of school without telling me, she's moved away from where I live without telling me. She threw me out of the house when I came to see my son on his 4th birthday. She seems to care little beyond the money she can get for him. Now he's seven and he's having to deal with an unstable parent who is constantly demanding more money and is jealous of the relationship who he refers to as his step-mother.
The sore point is the hypocritical system that has the mother as the best carer and all evidence to the contrary is studiously ignored - but any concerns raised are to be fully investigated before the father can see his child.
This whole issue is rarely acknowledged. BUT we do hear constantly about the number of women who are on Company Board of Directors - even though no effort is made to see what proportion of women even want these roles and the personal sacrifices they require. Perhaps I am the only father in this position who cares about his child. I doubt it. And which is more important?
~:smoking:
Did you know, the word "Vagina" is inherently sexist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
So is the word "person".
Isn't Latin great?
There is, in fact, no such thing as a "Gender-Neutral" word because all words, in all languages, have gendered roots.
Thank you for sharing your story. :bow: This is definitely an example where you are being failed by the system.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Sorry to hear all that, that must be maddening
A sad story, but the reasons for this are well-known to rest in stereotypical role differences - i.e. if a mother is not manifestly unsuited, then by default she is a better candidate for primary custody. The problem is then not one with the courts per se; latent expectations have to change over time for family-court participants to bring that change with them. There's no quick resolution to your pain.* And it's not clear to me that this issue is acknowledged (By whom? Where?) any less than one such as corporate representation.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
*I wonder if there are legal avenues to push the matter further in the system, but that's beyond me and I'm sure you have already discussed the possibilities with legal representation
What's sexist, let alone inherently sexist here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Equivocating on grammatical gender is a bad idea.Quote:
There is, in fact, no such thing as a "Gender-Neutral" word because all words, in all languages, have gendered roots.
Also, it is plainly false to say all words in all languages have gendered roots.
Vagina - a sword-sheath.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Persona - a mask, a character - feminine.
"Persona non grata" is as sexisst as "homocide".
The fact is gender-neutral language is a crock.
As far as Rory's story goes, I think it's sad and unfair, and not uncommon because of the assumption men are more violent than women. Nothing to do with parenting specifically, just basic sexism.
Vagina: Argument from distant etymology (meaning) is irrelevant to the living. You'd be better off focusing on the word's nature as the label of a sex feature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Persona: I just warned you about equivocating on grammatical gender.
Homo: An inclusive word, like anthropos.
Language is certainly not neutral - but that has to do with speakers and nothing to do with etymology or grammar.Quote:
The fact is gender-neutral language is a crock.
It's not a distant etymology, and "homo" isn't an inclusive word, it means "man" in exactly the same way that "man" means "man."Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
So if "Homocide" has no gender then neither does "chairman" and this is my point.
I am not the one equivocating here.
I wasn't much of a fan of the PC languaging thing at first, as I have always trended toward traditionalist. Over the years, saying "chair" instead of chairman, or firefighter instead of fireman etc. has become almost second nature. I find that it encumbers me very little while doing...perhaps...some good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
What yanks my chain is grammar and writing skills. Be PC all you wish, but please learn to write a grammatically sound sentence and...dare I hope...put 3 or 4 of them together in a paragraph that is a more or less connected thought. THAT is what this university teacher truly desires most, that the language be CORRECT, and as politically correct as you will in addition.
P.S. The modern English term 'cunt' is closest to the correct Latin cunnus term for what some label the vulva. That term, however closer to its Latin roots, is likely to cause someone to take umbrage. To a modern audience, the etymological considerations are of less note than the current connotations of any of these terms. Languages change as their users dictate. After all, the symbols we use -- words -- only have meaning because we ascribe meaning to them.
P.P.S When I was a young lad, the word 'disrespect' had no verb form.
The 'Homo' prefix is greek and it means same. So Homosexual means Same-sexual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Homicide means the the killing of one human by another. The homi/homo meaning we are from the same species.
Man means Man/Male. So Chairman, Fireman, Policeman, etc are roles of a male. Chair, Firefighter, Police Officer, etc are gender-neutral in the role, as the person being ascribed is not directly assumed as being a male.
I made the effort to check the Oxford Latin Dictionary and you're definitely wrong - your etymologies are the result of the "false friend" phenomenon. You might want to consider that I'm a Classicist and a Medievalist who spends all day doing Latin next time, I don't just make this stuff up, I actually had to learn it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Homo is Latin for "man", cognate with the English goom with it displaced and the Hebrew adam. Without qualification is can mean either "a man" or " a human", depending on context.
The word "human" and thence "man" come from the Latin humanus which is literally "a thing a man holds" from homo and manus. Your derivation for "homocide" and "hominem" are also wrong because they are Latin words.
As far as "homosexual" is a relatively modern word formed from two parts and it may actually be derived from the Greco-Latin "homo-sexual" meaning "same-sex" but it might also have been "man-sex" because likely when the term was coined there was little interest in the sexuality of women.
Compare discus from the Greek diskos "a quoit" and Latin discus "a learning".
Edit: Homo isn't a prefix, it's a noun.
Your reply is supporting an earlier comment I made which you quoted which was "Are you discussing gender-neutral in how language is biased against women and the movement to make it gender-neutral as not to imply a preference?". Your examples from classic latin reinforce this point being made.
Where I disagree is where I agree with Montmorency in the changing nature and evolution of language, so whilst some words do have origins in latin such as the vagina, it has now sufficiently changed to represent the physiological terminology labelling, losing its original concoctions of sword-sheath.
However, there are still words in play which have not evolved or their meanings changed. It is this aspect of the language which should be modified reflect the equality of the different sexes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
It seems to me that you both (at least PFH) mix up grammatical gender and gender as a social construct. In the case of the former languages don't manifest a universal pattern. There are languages which don't have this grammatical category (like modern English which has lost it as an aftermath of the Norman conquest) while others have it. The number of genders also differs - some languages have a three member gender opposition (Ukrainian or German -Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
feminine::masculine::neuter) others only two (like in Spanish - feminine::masculine). Moreover, the term "grammatical category" is erroneously applied in relation to nouns while it is quite accurate in relation to adjectives.
Peeves, you hold a pretty strange view, so as a trained hermeneute of the Latin language back it up with some exegetics and explain why it is wrong to consider homo a substantively inclusive word, and rightly a synonym of vir.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I don't think many support your version of humanus as a portmanteau of homo + manus; they're just cognate, distinct. They've meant a few things, but not that.
God God, man, are you now completely incapable of admitting you're wrong?
This is now the second time in one thread.
My point was that the word "homocide" was no more or no less sexist that the word "chairman".
You argued that I was wrong in this point because my etymology for the word "homocide" was wrong, your evidence for this was a faulty etymology from Greek, you argued that "homocide" was not "man killing" but "same killing" and likewise that "hominids" are not "man like" but "like us."
All language is inherently gendered with reference to people, all "gender-neutral" language tends to take a different word (usually from another language) and use that to replace the supposedly sexist word.
Then "Chairman" becomes not "chairman/chairwoman" but "chairperson" even though "person" is a feminine gender noun and "human" is a masculine gender noun. So we're not really any better off, we just think we are.
However, there are gender-neutral words, those that are derived from verbs instead of nouns.
In the case of "Chairman" you have two options -
1. "The (one who is) Sitting (in the) Chair"
2. "president" - from Latin "Presidi" - one who presides.
As regards the word Vagina, in the Iberian Peninsula (except Basque country) the word for "scabbard" is "vaina" and their word for "vagina" is, shockingly "vagina"; the difference in pronunciation is a half-sounded "h", essentially a glottal. So your argument there only really holds up in a monoglot English context. It doesn't work in Iberia, or for anyone who learns Latin - which is still a lot of people in Classics, Medieval history, the Church or Law.
But it's not.Quote:
All language is inherently gendered with reference to people
The real question is, why do you think we're not? You are muddled on two separate points: first, that the form in another, ancient, language has any present significance in the context of de-sexing language; second that grammatical gender is a form of sexed language in the way that we care about.Quote:
Then "Chairman" becomes not "chairman/chairwoman" but "chairperson" even though "person" is a feminine gender noun and "human" is a masculine gender noun. So we're not really any better off, we just think we are.
Presumably these people speak languages and lead lives outside Classics.Quote:
So your argument there only really holds up in a monoglot English context. It doesn't work in Iberia, or for anyone who learns Latin - which is still a lot of people in Classics, Medieval history, the Church or Law.
Well, most languages I'm aware of originally have three genders, they tend to lose Neuter first irrc - like Spanish. The point I am arguing is that in the fight for "gender neutral language" we inconsistently apply the rules of grammatical and semantic gender. In general terms, it's often the word of which the people are more ignorant which is found to be more acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Seamus made this point above - really we should be more offended by "vagina" than by **** but I can't even bring myself to type the latter word.
My bugbear is, these arguments annoy me because they are almost always trivial, made over small gramatical or linguistic points and the basis for the argument is fundamentally wrong.
I apologise, I got a little over-excited replying to Beskar and took is a step too far deriving "humanus" directly from "homo-manus", which I had read somewhere. However, it remains true that "humanus" is the adjective form of "homo" just as "feminine" is the adjective for "muelier" and "masculine" for "vir". I was correct in the meaning "the thing a man holds/the quality of a man" because it's an adjective, not a noun, in Latin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
So in any case, Beskar's derivation for "homocide" etc. was still utterly wrong.
The original English word for "man" was "wer" cognate Latin "vir", hence "werrior", also "werewolf".
If "homo" is found in Plautus in the context of "man" as a gendered person than that put the usage as far back as the Middle Republic, which supports my point that "homo" had the same meaning in Rome as "man" does today, it depends on the context.
"Mankind" is in no way a gendered term, although some like to argue that it is, it simply means "all of humanity" - both words ultimately derived from the same Latin root, except that the first is more anglicised than the latter and as a result has acquired more baggage through longer usage.
We've back-formed "man" from "human" - and it is - or we wouldn't be worried about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
As I have already said, people are happier with the language they're more ignorant of - because they feel it's de-sexed. They don't fully understand all the connotations of the word they're using, so they're happy with it.Quote:
The real question is, why do you think we're not? You are muddled on two separate points: first, that the form in another, ancient, language has any present significance in the context of de-sexing language; second that grammatical gender is a form of sexed language in the way that we care about.
The word "vagina" is just a great example, because it's so inherently sexist, reducing a woman's intimate parts to their function with relation to a man. People like the word, though, because they don't understand it. By contrast they dislike English words such as cwim which I tried to find a reputable reference for and can't because it's relegated to "slang".
Ja, some of them speak Spanish or Catalan. The defence that the word is so divorced from modern English that it's origin is no longer relevant only works in English. Which was the sole point of those examples.Quote:
Presumably these people speak languages and lead lives outside Classics.
They enact the meaning of the word(s) they use through their use of it and the acceptance of same by the message receiver. The word of itself is an arbitrary symbol with an ascribed meaning that alters as the mass of language users come to alter it based on their shared sense of what that symbol should signify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I find the history of a word and how it developed interesting, sometimes fascinating. But I am an academic and history buff who plays alternative military history games for entertainment.
Most language users really don't give a hoot. They are content to use some form of the "f-word" as virtually any part of speech and it has little or no connection to its original denotative meaning. It is used like some kind of flavor enhancer to conversation.
Disrespect was seldom used as a verb -- and now it is commonly used so, and has generated an abbreviated version for quick use since three syllables are so much work.
Humongous is now in the dictionaries, though when I was in high school it was a slang neologism.
Gay used to be the term for hedonistic heterosexual behavior, but now the term is used almost exclusively to indicate same sex sexuality.
All the meanings exist only in our heads anyway.
Let me clear this up on homo and "man" as an aside.
Here's what the OED has to say about the Old English sense of "man":
English "man" is from the PIE root, not from Latin or Romance.Quote:
I.1 A human being (irrespective of sex or age); = L. homo
It's not a contraction or back-formation of "human". It doesn't even seem to be cognate.
Now, whether in English, a Romance language, or other, etymological descent still does not matter, and you have not explained why it should. It's bizarre to allege ignorance, when clearly language is self-contained and doesn't depend on history. Turn it around, and you might well argue that "nigger" is not a slur since it derives from a word merely meaning "black" or "dark-colored". Either way, why?
Just for fun:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
It's not predominant.Quote:
Well, most languages I'm aware of originally have three genders, they tend to lose Neuter first irrc - like Spanish. The point I am arguing is that in the fight for "gender neutral language" we inconsistently apply the rules of grammatical and semantic gender. In general terms, it's often the word of which the people are more ignorant which is found to be more acceptable.
What do you think you are doing?Quote:
My bugbear is, these arguments annoy me because they are almost always trivial, made over small gramatical or linguistic points and the basis for the argument is fundamentally wrong.
OK, my Latin is better than My Old English, but Wikipedia also says this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
"In Old English the words wer and wīf (and wīfmann) were used to refer to "a man" and "a woman" respectively, while mann had the primary meaning of "adult male human" but could also be used for gender neutral purposes (as is the case with modern German man, corresponding to the pronoun in the English utterance "one does what one must")."
The fact that I fell into the "Latin, everything Latin!" trap isn't actually germain to my point, because "man" and "homo" still mean what I said they did.
But that's their primary biological function and biology is science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I also find it odd to confuse grammatical gender with biological gender. In German a chair is male, a shovel is female and a baby is neutral because neutral is the third grammatical "gender". When we use English words like German ones, e.g. in Computer Science, we have to give them a gender for the article. There can be fights about that as some genders with some words just sound odd or wrong, but it's also hard to prove anything, at best you can derive the gender from a similar German word or so in some cases. By the way, a computer is male, a drive is neutral and a disc is female. A joystick is male, mouse and keyboard female, speakers are female, the screen is male and so on.
I find it quite odd to derive too much from that. Subconscious effects that are minuscule hardly sound like a reason to do a lot. In that case it would make more sense to spray our food with estrogene instead of or in addition to insect killers to solve gender issues. :sweatdrop:
And yes, I know you weren't saying the concerns are valid, but even the grammatical stuff you mention seems a biot overblown to me in general. :shrug:
Properly speaking, there is no biological gender. There is biological sex, while gender is a social construct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I wish we still had female members active at backroom. Im sure this discussion would be lot more interesting, rather then focused at sexual bias of IE languages.
No there are just people who want to change genders meaning to "adherance to stereotype" and those foolish enough to believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsXC1_ZoVdg
How the mail lists sex offenders in a list with consensual relationships and kinky consensual sexual behaviours.
Take a deep breath and try to relax:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
https://youtu.be/yKTo4OftzbE
Isn't frogwoman still around?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
In the Backroom?Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Barely, that I remember. Magnoliawoman posted in the Backroom now and then but hasn't been around in a long time either.
The closest thing to women here are effeminate leftists like you, me and Fragony. :clown:
Perhaps some are lurking, but the more we call them out of control, the less likely they are to say anything I'd guess.
How DARE you disrespect me in such a way I am extremily disapointed in a way you can't understand, I feel abused
How could you???? I am not feminime at all I ju-
wait
I prefer to think of myself as centrist, but I suppose I can't argue with effeminate. I spend more time on my hair than most of the women I know, haha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Gee I wonder why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Really? A dearth of women in the 'all-politics-all-the-time' sub-forum of a website devoted to an electronic game series with "Total War" featured prominently in all its titles? Shocking...Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...29&FORM=VDRVRV
Didn't we just talk about gender stereotypes? :whip::stare:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
NOT stereotyping. While there are as many if not more women playing electronic and online games as men, women do not tend to favor games centering on strategic warfare. Source Source2 Source3 Source4Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
And I am not the one resorted to a flogging reference.
Been deprived of your needed 'discipline' of late by mistress? ~;)
Renata, Prole, Scienter, Frogeggbeast...
And a sharp lot they are....but that's 4 of how many backroom frequenters over that same time frame?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
To take the topic away from just the gender in language...
So if we were to look at the Backroom as a government branch or business how should we *fix* this lack of female participants? Is there a culture that isn't allowing their participation, should female gamers be given special encouragement for playing historical strategy games?
Is the 'Babe Thread' so sexist that it discourages females from participating in the off-topic forum parts?
Is it wrong to just accept that there are differences between the sexes and that their interests and abilities may not be equal? There are already exceptions to the rule of course. Access, wages, legal rights etc... should of course be equal for females but why is a preponderance of males in any group considered something that needs to be fixed.
A lack of female CEOs, Generals or any leadership position always is presented as a problem to be fixed instead of just a reflection of interests, abilities, personal ambition.
You have to remember that Frogeggbeat and Secura were admins, Prole was a moderator of the Backroom (of all places). They got those positions based upon merit, their gender/sex was never a issue or hindered their choice. There is no stigma on the organisational side of the Org (which is great).Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
As for the Backroom, it is not comparable to the issues such as female CEOs, etc as the Backroom has a significantly smaller sample size and interest from females in general. On the otherside, there are many females who are interested in becoming CEOs for example but they are limited by essentially by stigma. One field with a lot of stigma is Software Design and Development. I remember reading a post by one of the most qualified females in the field and she is constantly challenged to prove that she deserves to be there, as she is a female, with males using excuses (cognitive defences) to explain her existence as someone simply letting her in due to being female rather than having actual talent. It is rather shocking how the world can be.
Though if you want to apply to the Backroom. There was a time a female poster put forward their opinion and another member mentioned their partner and said "I think she escaped the kitchen". That said poster ended up with a big infraction and unfortunately that female poster didn't return as she felt uncomfortable due to hostilities. Sometimes it only takes that one person to be nasty and it tars opinions greatly.
Oh, I don't doubt their qualification at all, this was just a thought exercise. Frog was a great admin of the Arena and I'm well aware there is no discrimination in the Org. Having seen enough other forums (gaming, politics, military) this is the only one I return to after all these years due to the civil atmosphere brought about by good moderators.
The point was why do people think that the demographics at the top must be representative of society's demographics. Not everyone is qualified for the top and those skills are not distributed evenly either. Ambition is a key part. The fact that men don't get pregnant is also another leg up in pursuing a career which maternity leave will not fix. There will be discrimination of course but it works two ways as well. When that discrimination is systematic of course it needs to be opposed but constantly seeing the status quo as problem due to demographics causes discrimination in reverse.
I have friends that didn't pursue nursing or administrative careers because they weren't manly enough careers. One of my friends is the stay at home husband and dad while his wife is active duty Army and he gets crap from the wives in the FRG (family readiness group) for doing the woman's job.
To go back to the gender discussion and stray into the gender ID fray: Gender roles do exist, yes there are exceptions to the norm but they exist in every society with each have its own set of roles. Not all of them are are artificial constructs, to pretend that a man who wants to be a woman does not make him one. He may be very effeminate and get all the surgery to do so which is fine but he will never have a womb or bear children either (Life of Brian anyone?).
It would not surprise me to see in the future to see divorce lawsuits going into the discrimination realm because some man married a woman and then wants a divorce upon finding out his wife wasn't always a woman. While one would hope she would have informed him of that beforehand I'm sure the above situation will happen and she will claim she's being discriminated against for being transgender and in our society of litigation will probably get rewarded handsomely for the claim.
Germany's recent ruling which would let this person claim to be a man or transgender I guess is a solution but actually changing her designation to female seems disingenuous.
In this age too many people consider the mere existance of an imbalance as proof of intent. It is a mix of people who believe in equality of the sexes requires equality of outcome and the ambitious women who want to exploit those beliefs to side step competition.Quote:
When that discrimination is systematic of course it needs to be opposed but constantly seeing the status quo as problem due to demographics causes discrimination in reverse.
I rarely see campaigns calling for equality extend to menial jobs not considered glamorous or high status in society.
Can't think of a policy for our situation since we don't have a real inflow here to manage. This is more like a rural village with all the young people moved out, the old ones dead or out to pasture, and the middle-aged ones left to bicker in the dank pub.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
It is possible for our culture to reduce female participation, but I'm not sure how to assess it retroactively in the Org context. Most of the women here, and most of the newer arrivals overall, I have interacted with over games of Mafia.
In many cases, a preponderance has less to do with differences in interests than with differences in external messaging and stereotypes combined with exclusionary internal practices.
In living memory the fields of social work, nursing, and clinical therapy have been dominated by women. We have no reason to believe that women are intrinsically more interested or suited for these professions; it's mostly gerrymandering. We can change it over time, open up the fields for men - as has been happening to various extents.* In technical fields, especially Computer Science, men are the ones who dominate, and retrenchment in the late 20th century has regressed the ratio today. To repeat, both external (upbringing, messaging, and conditioning) and internal (professional and academic culture) factors can and should be addressed to even out the proportions.
It is not that having equal proportions in all things is ideal in itself, but that very frequently unequal proportions have more to do with harmful ideas and practices than with "choices and preferences".
*Note that even in these fields men have remained over-represented in the upper ranks, administration, and management.
A lack of female CEOs is not a problem from the standpoint that we should not be encouraging more people to be CEOs (or financiers, for example) - but the generic issue of power imbalance and representation in leadership remains. Leadership selection in business and the workplace, at least as much as in politics and the military, relies on networking over merit. We don't have much reason to reflect on "interests, abilities, and personal ambitions" while chauvinism prevails.
Nurses are over 80% femaleQuote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Human Resources is over 80% female
Midwives are over 95% female
Primary school teachers are over 80% female.
These are not menial and why is being a city trader making numbers move more "glamorous" than these other professions. Is it that men don't like them? But why should that itself matter?
~:smoking:
I have seen adverts to get women into plumbing, construction and other more hands-on typical male careers. Not exactly glamorous.
Then again, I am in a female dominated career and that doesn't bother me, neither does having female bosses. What is kind of interesting is that their bosses boss tends to be male though during the last couple of decades, they are now becoming females.
I think the alt-right would call it being "cucked".Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
They would be alternatively-correct(right) as always, better known as being wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Being a male in that field is rather invaluable and the fact they are a minority and the stereotype of the role is a female means there are missed opportunities. In the same vein, there are many male dominated careers which are stereotyped as such which should have a greater number of females for similar reasons.
An example is female police officers helping to handle rape cases as many female feel vulnerable and victimised, and having a big muscled bloke questioning them and towering over them can be intimidating. The female officer in that circumstance is more uniquely positioned to act like a bridge to ensure the law is done. At the same exact time, having a male officer there too provides a positive male role model for the victimised rolemodel who might be scared of men, but having a safe male presence means they can adapt better to that situation and recognise that there some bad people but also good people too.
...
I believe you meant ot suggest "*****-whipped." "Cucked" suggests the spouse is stepping out with others, which is not a necessary prerequisite to Beskar's having been 'topped' by females.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
I am 'whipped' as well. Though I would point at that the quality of the whipping is rather enjoyable. Perhaps Beskie enjoys the same? I know not.
Speaking of which.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
'Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult.' Ally's extraordinary defense for senate candidate Roy Moore
https://i.imgur.com/P3fxu5f.jpg
Somehow my head confused Roy Moore in ACIN's post with Roger Moore, but now that I realize that the alabama senate candidate is meant, it makes perfect sense.
Also, Mary and Joseph isn't biblical pedophilia because she got the baby without sexual intercourse. Get your facts straight!
@HooahguyQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
"I guess that's why they call him Baby Driver" joke.
George Takei got accused too.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...57/622/dff.gif
I'm sorry I just had to.
Spacey used to be one of my all time favorite actors. Hearing about all the accusations hurt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
And Sinatra was a hitter, Mozart was spendthrift drunk, more musicians of fame were addicts than you can shake that proverbial stick at...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Being good at your craft is not the same as being a good person.
I thought Jimmy Carter was a lousy POTUS. He is, demonstrably, a good and decent human being.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a powerful and effective civil rights leader who advanced the cause of Blacks in America further through non violence in a shorter period of time than any of the other US civil rights leaders before or since. He was also a womanizer.
Life does not present itself in neat little packages -- that only happens if a PR rep is involved and nobody has caught on to the spin yet.