things I used to love are turning feminist

[MigL]

I knew it was a muddled analogy.

( not my fault, you introduced it )

Advantages and disadvantages between two groups are not pivotal.

Men are not paid MORE because employers can pay women LESS. Women are paid less than the 'standard' wage.

 

Pushing down on the higher ( advantaged ) side of the scale disadvantages both sides.

Pushing up on the lower ( disadvantaged ) side eliminates the disadvantage.

( I know, the fulcrum of the scale confuses things )

[Phi for All]

I knew it was a muddled analogy.

( not my fault, you introduced it )

Advantages and disadvantages between two groups are not pivotal.

Men are not paid MORE because employers can pay women LESS. Women are paid less than the 'standard' wage.

 

Pushing down on the higher ( advantaged ) side of the scale disadvantages both sides.

Pushing up on the lower ( disadvantaged ) side eliminates the disadvantage.

( I know, the fulcrum of the scale confuses things )

 

Yeah, completely my fault that you don't know how scales work. The low side is the heavy (advantaged) side, that's why it's lower.

[MigL]

This isn't really about weight scales, though, is it ?

[Phi for All]

This isn't really about weight scales, though, is it ?

 

The scales of justice, which I mentioned when I started this analogy, work the same way. But I understand why you don't want it to work. Thanks for playing anyway.

[MigL]

Well, I'm sorry, but I was treating the light, high ( as in pay ) side as the advantaged side of the scale.

Not the heavy, low side as you are.

I didn't realize there was a standard convention.

 

A scale doesn't work for me as it implies one side has to have something taken away to give to the other side.

I would rather see both sides rise, or gain, to the same level.

 

I don't know exactly what you understand, nor what kind of game you're playing.

Please explain.

( or are you making assumptions about my character and motivations, again )

[Moontanman]

I used to really like to watch ted talks and the youtube channel dnews. i also am a big fan of hermiony from the harry potter series. I like the actress who played her and now there are more social justice or feminist videos on ted talks, laci green who hosted dnews is a feminist and same with the actress who plays hermiony in harry potter. I think there is a good kind of feminist that is for equality but the represented in the media feminist is trying to give women more rights then men and they usually use all their arguments just to complain about something. these feminists are going along with the more radical feminists in the media. I just cant believe how so many people in the media are going along with feminism to protect their image. they might not even agree with it they just want financial supporters and if they have a good image they will get more supporters. will feminism in the main stream die out soon? how can the media have so many people saying something so illogical like the pay gap? its been disproven many times yet reputable people still say its true. I think women have all the political rights they fought for. feminism is no longer needed.

 

 

How can a man who loves a woman not be a feminist?

[Sirona]

How can a man who loves a woman not be a feminist?

Moontanman, you must be quite the ladies man with an attitude like that! How poetic.

 

It's purely a coincidence that I was listening to Real Men earlier, 'if there's war between the sexes then there'll be no people left' *insert invisible music note emote that only cool people can see here*

[Moontanman]

Moontanman, you must be quite the ladies man with an attitude like that! How poetic.

 

It's purely a coincidence that I was listening to Real Men earlier, 'if there's war between the sexes then there'll be no people left' *insert invisible music note emote that only cool people can see here*

Nope married for 40 years, I wouldn't know what to do to be a ladies man...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78hagv86L3c

[CharonY]

You are a lady's man. Which often requires more thought.

Edited April 15, 2016 by CharonY

[Phi for All]

Nope married for 40 years, I wouldn't know what to do to be a ladies man...

 

In that time, you've learned what it takes.

 

When you turn pro, you become more of a "lady" man, focusing your efforts on the greatest lady in the world.

[Sirona]

You are a lady's man. Which often requires more thought.

and diplomacy which you men must have down to an art form.

 

 

Edited April 16, 2016 by Sirona

[iNow]

Diplomacy is sometimes best intentionally caged so as to increase incredible makeup sex potential. #buzzedprofundities #notnecessarilytrue #hashtagsaywhat? #happyweekend

[Sirona]

Diplomacy is sometimes best intentionally caged so as to increase incredible makeup sex potential. #buzzedprofundities #notnecessarilytrue #hashtagsaywhat? #happyweekend

Not caging it will increase the frequency even if it does impact the quality; you can't have everything. Happy weekend to you too.

[iNow]

Appreciate the sentiment, and agree that friction (on net) harms a relationship in ways that a fleeting quickie will never erase, but in the end it's ultimately about balance. Too much either way is to be avoided. Respect for each other, respect for self, respect for the preciousness of each ephemeral moment all matter, and sometimes that moment demands a bit of mental tickling, rhetorical sparring, and teasing. Sometimes diplomacy paradoxically gets in the way of achieving the best outcome for all involved parties, but I've taken us too far off-topic already. I clearly should've posted about cupcakes.

 

On that point, I disagree that I can't have my cake and eat it, too. Very few things are actually impossible for the clever amongst us.

 

Like treating humans equivalently (or at least not differently) due merely to their plumbing.

Edited April 16, 2016 by iNow

[Moontanman]

Nope married for 40 years, I wouldn't know what to do to be a ladies man...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78hagv86L3c

 

 

Did no one get the play on words concerning one of our own and the music video?

[Sirona]

 

 

Did no one get the play on words concerning one of our own and the music video?

I certainly didn't. Though, I do love how you've turned this thread around for the better. You're refreshingly positive, Moontanman!

[Moontanman]

I certainly didn't. Though, I do love how you've turned this thread around for the better. You're refreshingly positive, Moontanman!

 

 

I try to muddle through, wait till I come up with yet another UFO hypothesis and you'll see how fast I get shut down

 

In that time, you've learned what it takes.

 

When you turn pro, you become more of a "lady" man, focusing your efforts on the greatest lady in the world.

 

 

There is a lot of truth in that, Nancy is the greatest Lady in my world... She likes to be called Ms. Moontanman...

Edited April 17, 2016 by Moontanman

[iNow]

On that note, hope she's well and the battle she's fought continually progressing. Cheers, old friend.

[Sato]

I'm off SFN.

 

In the spoiler, not so relevant to this post, are comments on the responses to my last post. I was a bit stressed out so I stepped away awhile before reading.

 

For quick reference, I bolded the names before their responses on which I am commenting. Phi didn't address any of the points about the media bias / institutionalization and continued on something irrelevant to those points. Swansont, in response to a message about men facing issues "by virtue of their gender", examples of such issues (not quoted in his post), and how the popular media plays a role in perpetuating them, responded "...it's that they aren't obstacles that are there just for being men" without actually addressing any of the examples of such obstacles (substantiated by linked references in the previous post, and the many who actually suffer through such issues—who, despite their penises, happen to not have had the patriarchal advantages of Swansont). CharonY, to my reasoning that there was a 'feminist' (in the sense we were discussing) bias institutionalized in many of these organization, going clearly off of a defined criteria of "institutionalization" and how the current circumstance fits it, persisted that this was inaccurate, without actually countering the points.

 

 

That was probably the tamest of my posts in this thread, but after the first downvote, I had a feeling the other passengers would feel validated and hop on board. And here sailed 'ol Groupthink. I was very opposed to some of the flatly wrong and often offensive comments posted in this thread, but disagreement and its associated offence isn't generally what I use the rep system for; I thought the other active participants in this discussion felt similarly. It is very easy to rationalize exceptions, though, so I guess this tidbit won't get through.

 

Staff, just like anybody else, can have the propensity to be assholes. Denying and disregarding a class of people's suffering included, especially normal if they don't identify with them or have already been taught their suffering is less substantial. But, this thread, in its title and its detail, very clearly sought to discuss the feminist bias in popular media, namely its adverse, misandric features. In any case, not a thread about misogynistic circumstances affecting women in our culture, to the same effect that a topic about police violence against black Americans isn't a topic about how many more white people die at the hands of black people and otherwise. But the thread was derailed, the topic very cleanly, from any un-skewed criteria of "hijacking", hijacked. And it was done largely by staff.

 

I am ending my participation on SFN. I enjoyed contributing here when I could over the years and speaking with other members, but this was markedly wrong behaviour by the moderation. As I said, opposing, even offensive and acerbic views I am for (and I've indeed debated them on SFN!), even ones that quite literally deny and overwrite the nature of a group of people's tribulations... but the manner in which this thread was taken and hijacked by them, many who happened to be staff, is something I am opposed to in "regulated" forums like this one; when it's not a free for all, to keep the community fair and consistent, the regulators have a responsibility not to let any extraneous ideology seep in. And it's failed here, on scienceforums.net.

 

If the staff involved here concerns and comes to understand these gripes, their incarnation here, then they ought be keen to write an apology showing they understand the problem and can act to fix/prevent it, and I might come back in the future. I expect a restrained, high-brow version of what one might get on stormfront, however.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Just for the record, Sato, I neg repped you because I felt your argument to be irrelevant, misrepresentative of the issues directly related in this thread, and poorly constructed, not simply because I disagreed with you. I am sorry that you feel this is just cause to leave SFN. We have certainly benefitted from your contributions here in the past. However, I do not feel anyone owes you an apology for their posts here.

[StringJunky]

Sorry to hear you feel this way Sato, I, for one, shall miss your eloquent, intelligent, and clear style, irrespective of whether I have agreed with you or not.

Edited April 18, 2016 by StringJunky