Sexism, Misogyny and the rise and rise and rise of the internet asshole....

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows
People don't understand equality. Take the army for example. Lowering the bar for women to serve in a branch is not equality. Equality is making sure that a woman who can qualify the same as a man is not kept out just because she is a woman. Same goes for racial equality. The quotas are BS if they have to lower the bar to fill them.

a reply to: TKDRL

Well, there's a good clear answer to the question of the OP.

That makes sense.

When people feel hurt and disrespected, it influences their choices of behavior. They can learn to expect the same reaction from others they come across in the future, who are of the same gender as the ones that hurt them in the past.... and take a pre-emptive defensive stance.
Our actions and words can have a long term effect that travels widely.

There's something both males and females have in common and should be able to understand about each other.




Another general question (not to you specifically)-

I feel a bit confused though, on the generalizations we've been hearing here-

Are the majority of women complaining about being victimized and demanding to be protected,

Or are they more often telling others to leave them to their own battles and bug off?

It seems there are contrasting experiences.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Bluesma

It isn't funny.
Not in the slightest.
Surely understand the sarcastic nature of the use of that word in instances such as this.

I point out feminists support such foolish measures.

Surely you understood my similar usage of the word- expressing that I do not support such measures, myself.

But then, I am not a feminist.

a reply to: Bluesma

Then why focus on my usage of that word rather than the meat of what I said?

Which is a classic distraction tactic I'll point out.

a reply to: TKDRL

Indeed.

a reply to: Bluesma
I am speaking more from forum experiences personally, but that would carry over to gaming I am sure. A lot of the "men haters" have been burned by men, a lot of the "women haters" have been burned by women. They fuel eachothers' ragefest.

A lot of the groups I am a part of, started out cool and civil, but have turned into whiny shrill women bashing, like the feminists they bash. Anytime women have the upper hand in anything, they cry foul, even ridiculous stuff. Then they turn around and bash on feminists that bitch about a dude's shirt. It's pathetic really.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Bluesma

Then why focus on my usage of that word rather than the meat of what I said?

I wasn't. I was responding to it with the same style. using irony, sarcasm.

Okay, sometimes sarcasm and irony are not clear in this medium (but you made the choice of style, I just followed).

I have already responded to the meat in a more precise style. I will repeat it.

I do not support such measures.

ETA- as I responded, you added:

Which is a classic distraction tactic I'll point out.

Is it? How long you want to go on about the usage of the word here? Does this distraction tactic have a point of expiration?

a reply to: Bluesma

Regardless.
I started with an obvious and commonly used way of expressing sarcasm.
You took it seriously.

It's natural to wonder why.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Bluesma

Regardless.
I started with an obvious and commonly used way of expressing sarcasm.
You took it seriously.

It's natural to wonder why.

Oh for crying out loud!
I did not! I was just as sarcastic as you, thinking if you use sarcasm yourself, you can surely recognize when someone else is too.

You made it clear you did not catch it- so I changed the wording to a more explicit and clear form for you. I did that right away, to facilitate comprehension.

Geez, sometimes people interpret words differently, and a moment of establishing shared meaning has to be done before the discussion can continue. But that was done. Many posts ago. I told you it was sarcasm, I clarified the meaning.

Can we return to the subject? Did you have something to say about my not supporting the kinds of actions you pointed out?

Or is this question of whether or not I used the word "funny" in a sarcastic way, or not, a really pressing issue?
It seems a bit distracting from the topic...?

The questions I asked of the participants in this thread, on the topic, are now way back there and probably won't be seen by most.
Is that coincidence or was it intended?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Some women in this thread really enjoy basking in victim hood, what a shame that so many are willing to oblige.

* * * * * *

originally posted by: tony9802

That's such a wonderful response.. I love it..

Simple answers satisfy simple minds I guess...

Then again some people on this thread are deep, analytical thinkers that have been around for quite awhile, and get what's going on.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: tony9802

I'm sorry but searching someone on the internet is not bullying, nor is it "verbal" abuse.

Searching for someone on the internet for the sake of stalking him or her is a very serious offense. The example that I had offered concerned someone who had already been bullied online, and then was later stalked, but I can see you have yet to read any of the posts written by that individual. In my book, online bullying that leads to stalking is a terribly serious matter; you might want to reconsider your ideas about bullying and the crimes to which they may lead.

I can you see you feel particularly creative with yours Le"S" Misanthrope username.

Now,If you are stating that I am somehow a hypocrite because I did not let you get away with the grammatical mistake you had made, then perhaps you should consider the brief comment you made to "InTheLight," regarding the term "Irregardless;" I suppose I'm simply having the same amount of fun poking at you as you did her. Don't take it personally though..

However, if you're calling me a hypocrite because I chose a simple username, well, to be honest with you I've simply no need to carry on airs; I do believe nonetheless, that that is precisely what you're attempting to do here, at least to some degree.. All I would like to see, me personally, is that you live up to those wonderful airs, at least grammatically if at all possible; Writing from a cellular phone while casually driving or while busy with some other follish concern, well, that isn't quite 17th century "Molierian" writing method now is it.. Maybe we could all learn to follow Moliere and his methods instead..


I believe I at least have you thinking about it now don't I..

a reply to: tony9802

Just for the record, I believe I was the first in my social circle to use the word 'conversate' back in the early 70's because it just sounded good to me...low and behold, today, it is now a real word...and so will 'irregardless' become in fashion again, some day, because double negatives and slang go hand in hand.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Some women in this thread really enjoy basking in victim hood, what a shame that so many are willing to oblige.

* * * * * *

originally posted by: tony9802

That's such a wonderful response.. I love it..

Simple answers satisfy simple minds I guess...

Then again some people on this thread are deep, analytical thinkers that have been around for quite awhile, and get what's going on.

You are wrong DarkGhost. It is not about living up to "victimhood;" The power lies in calling someone out on their abusive conduct, in disciplinarian and corrective manner. That is no victim in my book.. On the contrary, that is a hero, a true vigilante..

a reply to: InTheLight

Got it

a reply to: WhiteAlice
What me sexist. Jeez funny no how you have a different opinion then what a random female online has and now all of a sudden your sexist. But to answer your questions.

Correct me if I'm wrong but what I'm reading is that if you're attractive and female, then you must use the internet differently because any views that you get are going to be based on your attractiveness? Would you prefer women to wear burkhas in online videos?

I dont know how burkas has anything to do with it. But ya I have witnesed plenty of females both online and offline get more attention because they were good looking, its not a secret you know, and ya you would even get more hits if you were a popular good looking female on youtube then if you weren't, that to is no secret. I really dont know what the issues is here, companies use that little thing all the time, from a beer commercial to everything else. Like I said your making more of it then it is.

Should we further even the online playing field by eliminating videos of kittens, puppies and other baby animals because they're cute, too, and since they're cute, they get a whole lot more attention?

You seem to think I have an issue with it, I have no issue with it whatsoever. Women both online or off can do whatever they want, and they do regardless of what I or you say. I am just seriously doubting this whole constant abuse everybody seems to go on about, the majority of females I have seen online may get that at one time or another, but they likely get more of the other more so, it may be one of the reasons why they all go bananas when even a little things crop up, there so used to having attention and eyes on them that they likely never learned how to work out when it isn't so.

But yes cute kitties get a lot more attention even online, I even used to have a kitty avatar, sometimes I would get random people on this site messaging me saying they liked my avatar. Now as you can see since I dont have a cute kitty in my avatar, I get no messaging of that kind whatsoever. So yes cute kitties in your YouTube vids has in some cases more then a slight margin of getting people to watch your video. That to is a known fact.

Or should we have an entirely different set of rules based on female attractiveness that limits their use of the online medium for communication?

Like I said I dont know what your talking about and dont care. Do whatever. Listen your under the impression I was talking about you. I was not, just commenting on those random vids i ran into and others I have ran into. That is all.

a reply to: undo
Well in that case, it may be so. I cant stand some of them brats, well at least not for any long periods of time, they do grate on your nerves and I always tell my sisters kids when she brings and leaves them around here that once your reach 10 that is the legal age were cuteness ends, and the things you do are not cute anymore. So at least for now throwing things and spilling cups is still technically considered cute.

a reply to: Bluesma
Listen here bluesma or bluesmurf or whatever you call yourself, because I dont necessarily read what you write.

And can be sure that I will not read what your going on about, and you cant make me. So far all I seen from you is trying to twist words around and putting things so out of context that its ridonculous, which if your wondering is not a typo. It's several stages beyond ridiculous. So sorry, I think I will be skipping what you wrote and write because I dont think its anything important or will be, at most I skimmed it and it was...Meh!

Your comparisons are weak at best, you do realize that somewhere in all that you may actually have to make sense. But hey, I am not a mean guy. I give you an E for Effort, and an A for Affront. Besides seeing that English is your second language you may have difficulty understanding the literal meaning of the word equal, so I suppose its to be expected.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Not interested in you reading this. If people are starring that post, there are some out there that haven't the faintest notion of the different meanings of the word, so the information being put out there is of potential value. They might not read it either, but then their ignorance is a choice, not a product of opportunity to learn. So compassion for their ignorance will not be necessary.

e·qual (kwl)
adj.
1. Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another.
2. Mathematics Being the same or identical to in value.
3.
a. Having the same privileges, status, or rights: equal before the law.
b. Being the same for all members of a group: gave every player an equal chance to win.
4.
a. Having the requisite qualities, such as strength or ability, for a task or situation: "Elizabeth found herself quite equal to the scene" (Jane Austen).
b. Adequate in extent, amount, or degree.
5. Impartial; just; equitable.
6. Tranquil; equable.
7. Showing or having no variance in proportion, structure, or appearance.
n.
One that is equal to another: These two models are equals in computing power.
tr.v. e·qualed or e·qualled, e·qual·ing or e·qual·ling, e·quals
1. To be equal to, especially in value.
2. To do, make, or produce something equal to: equaled the world record in the mile run.

source

adjective
1.
as great as; the same as (often followed by to or with):
The velocity of sound is not equal to that of light.
2.
like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc.:
two students of equal brilliance.
3.
evenly proportioned or balanced:
an equal contest.
4.
uniform in operation or effect:
equal laws.
5.
adequate or sufficient in quantity or degree:
The supply is equal to the demand.
6.
having adequate powers, ability, or means:
He was equal to the task.
7.
adjective
1.
as great as; the same as (often followed by to or with):
The velocity of sound is not equal to that of light.
2.
like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc.:
two students of equal brilliance.
3.
evenly proportioned or balanced:
an equal contest.
4.
uniform in operation or effect:
equal laws.
5.
adequate or sufficient in quantity or degree:
The supply is equal to the demand.
6.
having adequate powers, ability, or means:
He was equal to the task.

7.
level, as a plain..

source


Though I have agreed with the meaning you have pointed out, I simply pointed out that there is another way of using it ALSO- in which laws, regulations, and values start off on a level playing field (of rights and status) for both sexes- from there, the individual differences, skills and abilities can be compared relative to an implicit standard of tolerance (context).

-This is why I am not supportive of the actions which force a quota of employees of either sex, even though I understand the reasoning lies in the progression towards a change in mentality; the goal being that eventually, such enforcements would no longer be needed. Individuals would be judged according to their particular skills and abilities once the habit of seeing both sexes in all roles has been accustomed to.

I don't think those actions are needed anymore (though they might have been earlier). I think a level playing field is appropriate for this age.

a reply to: tony9802

Searching for someone on the internet is legal, tony. Let's not convict people of stalking until stalking is committed. This isn't 1984. Unless you can predict crimes before they're committed.

I called you a hypocrite because you've typed perhaps too many words, using whatever little information you can deduce from my name and writing, discussing Moliere for whatever reason, and attempting to write about grammar, in a vain attempt to gloat your online moral superiority while you act out what you're so against. You claim moral superiority in standards at the exact same time you break them. In other words, hypocrisy. There's another Moliere you might wish to read—Tartuffe.

Behold, your little "digs" and vigilantism didn't even leave the screen where you left them, harming absolutely no one. It only proves my point—every one of them a swing and a miss. You write, I read and vice versa—this is the only interaction between us this entire time. It simply does not equate to bullying, fighting, or anything of the sort. It's typing and reading. Maybe you enjoy online vigilantism, but I don't think anyone really requires it.

Some women in this thread really enjoy basking in victim hood, what a shame that so many are willing to oblige.

I don't believe in victimhood.

Though there is a difference between the focus upon the appropriateness of ones acts relative to context which is often misconstrued as a call of victimization.

I've stated it many times- I am not against the practice of slinging mud within certain contexts and environments- it is an important part of some competative activities.

But all is relative, and the individual is responsible for their choice of behavior, and where they decide to act it out.

If you go to work in a factory that makes boxes, and you choose to make balls instead of boxes, there is no reason to argue about who is the victim of that act, the owner? The manager? The stores which won't get their stock, or won't be able to sell? The consumers, who won't have their demands met? That is a bunch of needless BS.

You want to make balls? Go get a job in a factory that makes balls. Use your freedom intelligently. Freedom is only possible when respect for others balances it out.

This is not an online game, it is not a non-moderated forum, it is not youtube. F*ck victimization. We're grown ups. I have unmoderated free for all forums I go to when I am in the mood for that. I come here because of the more creative exchange and discussion, and moderation.


The OP reminded us of the T and C's here-

16) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, libelous, defamatory, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.


I am pretty sure that applies to both men and women equally here.