are there double standards in L&D?

Post Reply New Topic

Indeed, I was using a rhetorical device. It's a good way of pointing out how far-fetched someone's point is.
The main deal here is: if a supposed patriarchy truly allowed for all of these things to happen, it would be a matriarchy.

Where did I get my talking points? Regarding the hostility, dozens of women I've met over the years who were not members of my family or people who had to deal with me according to their job description. Forced friendliness from people at a counter. Interestingly, almost all men I've ever met were friendly. As for the contraceptives, I read about health insurance, received a letter from the government a few years ago saying they could summon me for military duty whenever they liked from that moment on. My little sister is that age now and, in line with the law, she has not received that letter. Feminists are all around the European Union and our government and politics now, and they have made no effort to even mention that slight issue in the way of equality, prefering to spend their precious time for a ridiculous salary forcing women into boardrooms in poor countries.



Why is it that it all has to come down to a patriarchy apparently too stupidly incompetent to favour its own group above the group it's supposed to oppress? Where I live, women can be soldiers, but they cannot be legally forced to be soldiers, whereas men can. There are plenty of high-ranking women here. If I want to visit a Planned Parenthood, I would have to swim for thousands of miles. As for the profitability of free contraceptives for insurance companies, they've recently removed birth control pills from most coverage here as the effects were next to none but tens of thousands of women were having sex paid for by us all.
What do trans men have to do with this discussion? If they're biologically female, and get pregnant, they're like all females in health care for what I know.



That's society. Bringing more inequality based on sex into the equation by law is like treating a paper cut with a chainsaw.


Based on the colour of your skin, that is racism. If it had been "beat up the black kid", it would have been a hate crime. That's basically the same issue, only with skin colour instead of genitalia as a way of determining whether or not something is discriminatory, a heinous crime against a defenseless person, or alright, admirable and funny because it's not that big a deal.



Indeed, they're proof of nothing beyond that, but it makes me wonder when I've met dozens of women, yet not even one who was vaguely friendly unless she was paid to appear friendly in order to sell me something, if there are any friendly women at all. I do not feel safe in public, not even when I'm with friends, as I'm in the middle of the demographic group (young men) who are, by far, most likely to be victims of violent or financial crime. Simple example: you and me walk across the street. A group of young criminals decides to stab one of us and steal their money. The person stabbed will probably be me, although they might ask you for your money.



In primary school, I tried that. Unfortunately, they damaged a small windmill I had in my garden, they destroyed my radio-controlled boat, scammed me, annoyed me and threw sand in my face. In secondary school, I tried that again, and I ended up being incited against and even punched in the stomach out of the blue, and sticking with one group of guys who generally called women b*****s as a result. Once again, that is society. It works both ways - if someone tries to insult me, incite people against me to the point where they'll use physical violence against me (I showed the guy, though, and he too became friendly when I met him again later), I'll have no problem insulting them much more.



If society has taught me anything, it's how to fire back insults that completely shut someone up. Sometimes, I surprise myself and everyone by being extremely witty and deductive and bringing down everything anyone said. One time, I said to someone I know that he was a dick, in jest. Someone else then commented: "If that's what your dick looks like, you need medical help." Now, apart from that he stole that one from me, I responded by saying "Did I specify him to be my dick? I mean, it's about the size of him, but not that shape." He then stopped talking to me and resumed listening to the lecture. I have lawyer skills.

One small comment on the word 'stewardess' vs. the word 'flight attendant': there is such a thing as a steward.

Rhetorical devices are useful when you're trying to hide a lack of meaningful content.

In all of your social interactions, you are the only common denominator. People can feel when you don't like them, and they don't respond positively to it. If you weren't giving off that vibe before (which I'm sure you'll say you didn't because then it wouldn't be women's fault) you most certainly do now.

Birth control isn't subsidizing or paying for sex, hormonal birth control is used to treat a variety of things including heavy/debilitating periods, ovarian cysts, and even acne. It's preventative care, end of story. In the US, which is what I'm talking about until you name your country so I can get accurate information, Viagra (pretty strictly for sex) is covered by insurance while until recent health care reform passed birth control was not.
Trans* men are important because they are men who benefit from services you claim only benefit women. Also because trans* people get ignored in gender discussions all the time and it's frustrating.

I gave accurate information about the US military, unfortunately my weak lady brain doesn't know everything about every military on earth off the top of my head and I failed to intuit your location. In any case feminism is about equality, and it's an ideology not a collection of individual behaviors.

Patriarchy isn't about favoring men it's about maintaining the power structure, which happens to favor men. It's not about protecting a chosen people.

Interesting how things you feel favor women are misandry (which even spell check agrees is not a thing) and things that may favor men are "society"

If you're interested in gender equality (no misogyny or "misandry") you should support gender neutral terminology.

Friends commiserate - its one of the functions of friendship. A tough one for many of us, but nevertheless.

If there's no reciprocity - if, in that example, the boy won't listen in return when she has problems - well then yeah, that's no good, but only because there's no reciprocity, not because someone's talking about problems. There's nothing wrong with talking to friends about problems.

If all he/she ever does is to contact their victim three times a month to b***h about problems, while never talking about other things, they're not friends. Emotions are something you talk about now and then after the other part has asked about them.

Your very comment about my rhetorical devices is a rhetorical device. By using that, you imply that I suffer from a lack of meaningful content, which I do not. I've provided you with clear examples of rules and common concepts to support my statement that there is no patriarchy, only society, and that society in itself is something that generally protects women, even more so in the past, and sees men as being much more dispensable and expects men to be much stronger, emotionally and physically. My father felt like he was expected to drive us all the way to France on a holiday with a severely-bruised hand after tripping over a wire my sister forgot to remove.

While I am one common denominator, another is that almost every hostile person was female, and nearly every non-hostile person was male. and that I generally had not even spoken to them yet when they became hostile. I might seem hostile now, but it's alright from my part - I'm calm, and very tired, and I usually argue out of logic or balance rather than prestige or emotion. Often, I pick sides with some group I disagree with.



If it's medical, it can probably still be paid for by taxpayers here, and I wouldn't have much of an issue with that. Viagra, too has medical purposes. It's very effective for treating some artery-related and pressure-related ailments, as it has to do with widening arteries. However, what I'm objecting to, and what was offered as reasoning for removing birth control pills from everyone's insurance, is that we were paying for two people having sex. That was, by far, the most common use for birth control pills. If we want to encourage semi-protected fun everyone pays for but not everyone can have, we might as well give out free magic mushrooms and mescaline. Before you continue reading, did you notice my slightly-too-intimate knowledge of psychoactive drugs? Can you guess where I live? We have drugs, whores and boring paintings used as an excuse to visit places that have drugs and whores.



Unfortunately, my stupid boy brain doesn't know a lot about the US military apart from it being widely detested here. Throw rocks at me. I'll reveal my approximate location later on in this post. My problem with feminism is that saying you're working for something doesn't mean you are working for something. Heretics were set on fire as a method of torture and execution, and it was said they'd be absolved from some of their sins that way. China's Great Leap Forward was meant to make the country more powerful, increase equality and provide a good standard of living for everyone. Over eighteen million people died as a result.

What I'm mainly trying to say here is that saying you're working to achieve equality does not mean you're actually working to achieve equality. You see, in general, women have many more legal, cultural and even economic rights than men where I live, and as far as I can tell, slightly more where you live. They have more rights and fewer responsibilities, and if Viviane Reding manages to pass some European legislation, the situation will get a lot worse. Vivane Reding is using the properly-explained 'difference in pay between men and women' as an excuse to force companies to hire a set percentage of women regardless of competence, meaning from a certain point of representation, men are discriminated against. Equality? While women are refused from such positions slightly more often, they're also infinitely more likely to use pregnancy as an excuse to take two-month paid breaks.

Fun fact. Did you know that, in proportion to the amount of homicides committed by women, they're executed much less often? If you drew an exact line, approximately 150 women should have been executed since 1976 as opposed to the 12 (last time I checked), mainly considered unattractive and older, that were actually executed? Your comments on patriarchy are somewhat unfamiliar to me. "Maintaining the power structure which happens to favour men" is not something I've ever experienced. Politically, we've been under the unreasonable influence of feminism since the 1960s, to a point where one party refused competent male candidates in an election as it wanted half of the party to be female, resulting in some of the worst politicians ever being voted in office due to them having this little thing down there called a vagina, and the party nearly collapsing on itself in polls.



That's not exactly what I said. What I said here is that, for example, while some people blame women who dress in revealing clothes for being raped, practically everyone blames men who are raped, denies that it could have been rape, laughs at the fact that they were imprisoned, freely makes jokes about it, says they shouldn't complain, that saying they were raped automatically makes them gay, and that they should be kicked in the balls for being fa***ts.

Society has advantages and disadvantages for both sexes. Previously, men had more rights, but also more responsibilities. In the twentieth century, women gained more rights, eventually having more rights than men, having their problems recognised as having precedence over men's problems, while retaining many of their cultural advantages. I can't remember the last time anyone held a door open for me, but I do remember the last time I was accused of being mean for refusing to hold a door open for a woman walking behind me. Meanwhile, if I wanted to join one physics course, I couldn't, because I have a penis. She could.

As for my location, it's near Rotterdam, in the Netherlands, in Western Europe, in the European Union, not too far from the world's largest, most hypocritical, bureaucratic hive of rampant feminism. And finally, a small compliment: seemingly, you have no interest in gender equality, defending feminism while denying misandry.

*shrugs* some people enjoy that kind of things with their friends. It's not my cup of tea, but it doesn't mean my way is right and theirs is wrong. I'd find it intolerable and I'd be incompatible with them as a friend, but I wouldn't think they were doing anything bad to me. I don't have to, to end the friendship. Its a no fault situation.

Can you honestly say you're a perfect friend who's always done everything right? I'm surprised you're here, if so.

I think there is double standards and not just in L&D.
spongy is a God. All Hail!

I'm not a perfect friend, but I never use or manipulate people.

It's good that you can tell everyone else when they are being stupid. But sometimes you have to get some integrity and tell YOURSELF when you are being stupid. This goes for everybody. You, I, others. Humility might be seen as a weakness, but it's merely the strength of an open mind.



Don't see double standards, and emotional tampon being used as a definition in the same sentence. I love this place more every day



Agreed. Amen. If people stopped thinking about which gender was practising them for one moment, then we might be one step closer to having less double standards. This thread seems to be an epic blame and self defence game.



If many in here had it their way, you may not.

=============================================================================
Anyways, folks, my point is we can have different opinions on things. Men and women can be harsh to one another esp. in the L&D game. But why must we insist on rallying campaigns that all our personal problems are the entire fault of the opposite sex? Surely it would be more constructive to use this place to build your experience in dealing with good/bad people of any gender and make sure you end up with good partners not bad ones, and equally learn to become better partners ourselves?

That's what I thought this subforum's intent was when I first joined

heres accurate information about the US military. Men are sent a piece of paper at 18 saying theyre in the books in case theres a war. Women can join the military but guess what, they NEVER, BY LAW, get combat jobs. I know this as i know men and women in the military.

It's essentially the same here. The only difference is that women can choose to be in combat jobs. The administration is simple: all men, regardless of circumstances, basically get a letter saying they can be called for military service whenever the government wants to for little to no set pay. Women can apply for the military. They'll receive full pay, and they are even offered the choice to go to a military academy so that when they start working, they're in charge.

Now, as for double standards: I've noticed. If I accidentally imply that a woman is fat, people hate me. However, women have insulted my appearance out of the blue plenty of times.

False. People claim this, but studies on the matter show that a majority of women use hormonal contraception for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

Studies also show people lie about sensitive issues to other studies. Especially about sex.

I'd like a source for a study on the use of hormonal contraception that is completely funded by mandatory insurance.
Our government, and insurance companies, finally got rid of that measure because it was costing a lot of money.

.
[/quote]

heres accurate information about the US military. Men are sent a piece of paper at 18 saying theyre in the books in case theres a war. Women can join the military but guess what, they NEVER, BY LAW, get combat jobs. I know this as i know men and women in the military.[/quote]

Not in case there is a war, in case there is a draft. war=!draft. Stoploss is for practical & purposes much more likely. If you wan't to get rid of that policy, you know who's on your side? Feminists.
The draft as well as co-ed bathrooms were used as a rationalization to shoot down the ERA.
This is true, women are BY LAW denied access to higher paying combat roles, a policy that is entirely ignorant of the situation on the ground in our seemingly endless "war on terror". There are no lines to stay behind in this kind of conflict. There are women overseas, in combat situations not receiving combat pay. Knowing someone in the military doesn't qualify you as some kind of expert and in any case it doesn't differentiate you from me as I come from a military family. Our personal experience isn't relevant.


Also, what is this argument meant to prove. That if men are somehow "doing more war" they deserve more than equal treatment? They deserve higher status in most cultures?