There are plenty of women who, for whatever negative reasons, find themselves habitually involved with horrible men time after time. Why can't the reverse be true? Because your sexism says so.
#MeToo - is it just different for men and women?
- Thread starter Craterloads
- Start date
There are plenty of women who, for whatever negative reasons, find themselves habitually involved with horrible men time after time. Why can't the reverse be true? Because your sexism says so.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,639
At work as well? Does he live with a female pimp?
Dude got the (not so) hairy side?
Those women who regularly become involved with horrible men, often are habitually drawn to them everywhere: out and about, at work, restaurants, etc (how do you think the women find their horrible boyfriends and male friends?). You're arguing that the reverse can't be true because you hold sexism here.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,639
I've never heard of a women in an abusive relationship who is also getting hit by colleagues at work.
Not in this century anyway!
Not in this century anyway!
Joe Biden's accuser Tara Reade is reportedly getting loads of abuse and threats because the same people who up until recently ran with the mantra "believe all women" are 100% positive she is lying.
Thank god modern liberals are so tolerant and such nice people, I mean the treatment Christine Blasey Ford received at the hands of the "far right" was far worse...
Thank god modern liberals are so tolerant and such nice people, I mean the treatment Christine Blasey Ford received at the hands of the "far right" was far worse...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,639
Where are all these reports that "the left" are abusing the poor woman? And that those are the exact same people who believed Christine Blasey Ford without question?
VincentHanna, I want to point out that what I was saying earlier included the (likely) possibility that such men have some serious flaws themselves. Whilst out and about over the years, I've seen a few men put up with a lot of verbal abuse from their female partners (and it's possible that they mainly put up with it for the sex, yeah). However, I bet there are men, maybe even some of the ones I encountered, that also put up with degrees of physical abuse perhaps via a combination of their own flaws (depression, self-hatred, being an unlikeable ****, etc.), sexist societal expectations that men shouldn't "whine" about anything, etc etc, and some horrible women taking advantage of those elements or/and just being horrible themselves.
Edit: This thing with Biden being true wouldn't surprise me at all, and the American "left" are being predictably hypocritical about it (just like Republicans are always predictably hypocritical). If he gets elected, I'll be hoping he's got a much better VP and that they take over Cheney-style or whatever.
Edit: This thing with Biden being true wouldn't surprise me at all, and the American "left" are being predictably hypocritical about it (just like Republicans are always predictably hypocritical). If he gets elected, I'll be hoping he's got a much better VP and that they take over Cheney-style or whatever.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Last night I watched part of a Netflix series titled "Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich". It is absolutely staggering the way a very rich pervert with the help of his "friends" managed to manipulate the US Justice system to avoid punishment for years.
Equally amazing was the range of people with whom he mixed and who one would think must have had some inkling as to what was going on and yet who appear to have turned a blind eye, including Weinstein, Andrew, Clinton, Spacey, et al.
I wonder what has happened to the thoroughly evil "British socialite" Ghislaine Maxwell and who is protecting her?
Equally amazing was the range of people with whom he mixed and who one would think must have had some inkling as to what was going on and yet who appear to have turned a blind eye, including Weinstein, Andrew, Clinton, Spacey, et al.
I wonder what has happened to the thoroughly evil "British socialite" Ghislaine Maxwell and who is protecting her?
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,361
Dont care much to be honest. I know i am a man and only live an ordinary life but most women respect men and most men respect women. Just dodgy folk gonna be dodgy. Most people are ok. I dont think this is a massive problem like its made out to be. Sensationalism.
Well not too surprising given who you've listed - they have their own sordid aspects of their private lives too!
Speak to anyone who has worked on say super yachts etc.. it's not just the famous ones, some billionaires/multi millionaires do leverage their considerable resources to cater to sordid activities. Yacht girls are a thing (not all of them sleep with the owners/charterers and their guests), various aspiring hollywood actresses have been yacht girls including (allegedly) one that has been the target of british tabloids in recent years.
It could be one week or so with mates and the yacht girls/hookers and another week the family comes out for a holiday. Or apparently in the case of some Russians, the family goes on the main yacht and the yacht full of hookers/yacht girls follows behind.
I guess not just billionaires either - it's not exactly unheard of for some bankers etc.. to hire a villa and fly in some girls etc... I remember working late at work one day and picking up a phone, it was an automated message (like someone had texted the number!) blatantly from a hooker giving directions to her flat - someone in the office had clearly called her earlier and she'd texted back (to the landline!).
In fact, lets face it, you hear about this stuff re: people from all walks of life - there is sometimes one on a stag do who gets carried away in a strip club, people who've served in the army and were stationed in Germany seem to have often taken advantage of what was on offer etc..
I guess the billionaires simply have way more opportunity for it at times.
Why assume anyone is protecting her? She's got plenty of reason to protect herself here - allegedly she's been rather complicit in some of these activities, no reason for her to suddenly tell all and face possible criminal charges. It's not like she's not being reported on, investigated etc...
Haha. Have the TV on for some background noise (which is bad, I should just turn it off).
Anyway there's a programme on one of the (many) awful cable-TV channels on FreeSat. About women's expectations of men as partners.
And frankly it's 100% men bashing, lol. Anyway, among the titbits..
Apparently women are now more educated on average than men. More women in universities than men. More research done by women than men. Women achieving higher standards in tests and other academic achievement.
Women are now 54% of all management posts and this figure is rising.
Then, women are apparently "less interested" in men than ever before, because men are not their intellectual equals, and a bit too boring to appeal to modern women.
Apparently men have less and less value in modern society / less contribution to make as they are no longer needed to be protectors and guardians.
And yet despite all this women are oppressed, and need more protection from discrimination in a male dominated world. And men are scared of given them the respect they deserve.
Seriously, feminism is so toxic. Why they seem to want a war between the sexes I have no idea And why these awful cable-TV style channels want to push this BS I also have no idea.
Anyway there's a programme on one of the (many) awful cable-TV channels on FreeSat. About women's expectations of men as partners.
And frankly it's 100% men bashing, lol. Anyway, among the titbits..
Apparently women are now more educated on average than men. More women in universities than men. More research done by women than men. Women achieving higher standards in tests and other academic achievement.
Women are now 54% of all management posts and this figure is rising.
Then, women are apparently "less interested" in men than ever before, because men are not their intellectual equals, and a bit too boring to appeal to modern women.
Apparently men have less and less value in modern society / less contribution to make as they are no longer needed to be protectors and guardians.
And yet despite all this women are oppressed, and need more protection from discrimination in a male dominated world. And men are scared of given them the respect they deserve.
Seriously, feminism is so toxic. Why they seem to want a war between the sexes I have no idea
And why these awful cable-TV style channels want to push this BS I also have no idea.
Haha. Have the TV on for some background noise (which is bad, I should just turn it off).
Anyway there's a programme on one of the (many) awful cable-TV channels on FreeSat. About women's expectations of men as partners.
And frankly it's 100% men bashing, lol. Anyway, among the titbits..
Apparently women are now more educated on average than men. More women in universities than men. More research done by women than men. Women achieving higher standards in tests and other academic achievement.
Women are now 54% of all management posts and this figure is rising.
Then, women are apparently "less interested" in men than ever before, because men are not their intellectual equals, and a bit too boring to appeal to modern women.
Apparently men have less and less value in modern society / less contribution to make as they are no longer needed to be protectors and guardians.
And yet despite all this women are oppressed, and need more protection from discrimination in a male dominated world. And men are scared of given them the respect they deserve.
Seriously, feminism is so toxic. Why they seem to want a war between the sexes I have no idea
The reason why group identity advocates (especially biological group identity advocates) want a war is the same regardless of which group identities they believe in and where they place those identities in the hierarchy they make up. Some seek power and a scapegoat. Others seek a sense of belonging and a scapegoat. Others seek an excuse for feeling righteous about their hatred and a scapegoat. But a scapegoat is always required. There has to be conflict. There has to be an enemy-identity to blame. It doesn't matter whether the enemy-identity is men, jews, "whites", "blacks", catholics, protestants, communists, capitalists, Big-Endians, Eastasia or whatever. It's the same ideology.
The reason why some media outlets push it is either because they're run by followers of the ideology or because it's deemed to be profitable in some way. Views = money. Views = influence = power. Also, appeasing bigots is prudent if they have enough power.
BBC were doing their part for PC correctness last night if you didn't see it, newsnight female interview of (celebrity apparently) author 'I hate men',
bit of a car crash interview like prince andrew,
"I know not every man is a rapist, but I think every man benefits from misogynistic society." Pauli
since bbc also covered - #metoo evangilist Meghans article, feel sorry for her miscarriage, but, could have used her platform to remind people of increased 3x risk at age of 40.
bit of a car crash interview like prince andrew,
"I know not every man is a rapist, but I think every man benefits from misogynistic society." Pauli
since bbc also covered - #metoo evangilist Meghans article, feel sorry for her miscarriage, but, could have used her platform to remind people of increased 3x risk at age of 40.
Hmm.
I think that there’s a slightly amusing paradox in that men must control and ultimately own women, yet men are slaves to women.
The conundrum is even knowingly acknowledged in the age old idea than a man loves and a woman obeys. For to a man that is ‘love’.
Men have huge egos that need satiating, yet egos cause men such great pain and suffering.
It’s pretty horrendous to be a woman and subject the the fickleness of men. It’s also pretty horrendous to be a man and be subject to the fickleness of being a man.
I’m not sure who would chose to be either.
....Echidna it is \o/
I think that there’s a slightly amusing paradox in that men must control and ultimately own women, yet men are slaves to women.
The conundrum is even knowingly acknowledged in the age old idea than a man loves and a woman obeys. For to a man that is ‘love’.
Men have huge egos that need satiating, yet egos cause men such great pain and suffering.
It’s pretty horrendous to be a woman and subject the the fickleness of men. It’s also pretty horrendous to be a man and be subject to the fickleness of being a man.
I’m not sure who would chose to be either.
....Echidna it is \o/
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Stuart Croft, the Warwick vice-chancellor is coming under criticism for not taking seriously a letter (https://theboar.org/2020/11/open-letter-sexual-assault/) written to him by a female student who claims she was raped at Uni by a male flatmate.
It is impossible to ignore the possibility that the Administration thinks that "Boys will be boys". Any allegation of sexual misconduct should be thoroughly investigated; if the aggressor is found guilty they should be sent down and the details should be passed to the Police - ALWAYS.
It is only by taking this seriously that students, both male and female, who may well end up in positions of authority, will learn what is and what is not acceptable behaviour.
It is impossible to ignore the possibility that the Administration thinks that "Boys will be boys". Any allegation of sexual misconduct should be thoroughly investigated; if the aggressor is found guilty they should be sent down and the details should be passed to the Police - ALWAYS.
It is only by taking this seriously that students, both male and female, who may well end up in positions of authority, will learn what is and what is not acceptable behaviour.
You don't think women can be fickle? Or have egos?
I can only speak as a man, but I would hypothesise that men probably on average have a more aggressive and fickle ego than women. This makes complete sense to me from a biological perspective. A man can have borderline unlimited children from having sex with unlimited females. The same is obviously not true for women. From that perspective, is therefore logical than a man is more prone to feeling stressed by a perpetual monogamous relationship and more prone to having a fickle attraction to young, fertile women.
I think you're over-extending a flawed argument. You were talking about ego and fickleness, not monogamy. That's the over-extension - ego and fickleness is not the opposite of monogamy.
The monogamy argument is itself flawed and the same facts could just as easily be interpreted the opposite way to "make complete sense" "from a biological perspective".
Note that the following is not my view. It is an illustration of how the same facts can be interpreted very differently.
A "perpetual monogamous relationship" would ensure that a man knows he's the biological father of any children of the relationshop. Until extremely recently, there was no other way a man could know that. So it "makes complete sense" that monogamous relationships inherently suit men better and it is therefore logical that a woman is more prone to feeling stressed by a perpetual monogamous relationship and more prone to having a fickle attraction to young, virile men.
Also, your post contained very simplistic sexism - "Men have huge egos that need satiating". Imagine something that simplistic and negative targetting any other group (e.g. women) and you'll see the irrational prejudice.