there was an article on the news about some guy that did a selfie in front of a star wars cardboard cutout, but apparently there were some kids standing nearby and some lady allegedly took a picture of the guy and put him on social media only for him to get labelled as a pedafile and it went viral. and hes been copping it since.
its made me think that this sort of thing would be no different to defamation. the article was in todays news
whats your opinion?

in turned out the guy was a family man who posted a selfie and sent it to his wife and kids.

its different if you were caught in the act of doing something wrong, then it would be ok to film, but to just make assumptions on a basis where you are imagining or conjuring something that has not happened is grossly defamatory in my opinion. and the person who circulates it should be liable

Edited by Socawho: 8/5/2015 09:31:09 PM

Edited by Socawho: 8/5/2015 09:31:43 PM

Edited by Socawho: 8/5/2015 09:47:47 PM

defamation covers it already

I saw this on Facebook the other day as it happened locally.

Was a clear as day picture of a man outside Target with a caption of 'this man came up to my kids, took a picture if them and then said he was going to send it to all of his mates' and then of course the witch hunt came.

Hopefully he sues the Mother for everything she has.

Edited by jlm8695: 8/5/2015 10:11:12 PM

This.

Also, why was he labeled a child molester for taking a selfie in front of a Star Wars cut out?

Actually, HOW can someone label this guy a child molester for taking a selfie in front of a Star Wars cut out? How does one make that assumption? If you can see a guy taking a selfie and some children happen to be nearby and your first thought is "He's a child molester", that probably says more about you than it does about him.

Isn't false misrepresentation just representation?

As I stated before, the person who took the photo was somehow under the assumption that he had photographed the kids and specifically told them that he was sending the photo to his 'mates'.

The problem with social media is you are guilty until proven innocent.
Supposing the guy got bashed to death by vigilantes...it would mean. that the lady who posted the photo isnt culpable for the crime.
the dangerous part of it is someone can make up anything and once it becomes viral most people will believe it

Edited by Socawho: 9/5/2015 12:18:32 AM

That's what I came here to say :lol:

Pretty shit attempt at an apology there, I didn't see the posts as they were happening live but it sounds as though she was pretty vocal in encouraging it to be spread and then she says she didn't know her profile was public? Plus no explanation about making up that the guy said he would send it to all of his mates.

I was channel surfing today and came across a discussion about this and they had heaps of male viewers commenting about how often they receive suspicious glances or get harassed when out with their kids or waiting to pick kids up from school. I don't want to derail the thread here but I think the prevalence of social media feminist blogs like mamamia that consistently generalize against men and always push the victim card are having a seriously negative impact on the impressionable minds out there.

Then maybe you shouldn't do the same thing you are complaining about and generalising based on your own agenda.

There is a big difference between fallaciously attacking an individual and focusing specifically on problem areas in society factually. One is slander/libel, the other is agenda-biased social commentary.

How am I generalizing when I've named a specific example instead of lumping all these sources together?

I have no agenda. Just because I've felt the need to criticize prominent writers/bloggers who write slanderous articles that lump all males in together does not make me an MRA loon or equip me with some kind of agenda, it makes me a guy who doesn't like what's being written about guys.

If this is going to start an argument then this will be my last comment on the topic but is there a possibility that the prevalence of certain radical feminist opinions on social media are having too much of an impact on the minds of readers? personally I think it's a fair question as things like the generalizations that stem from things like #questionsformen campaign certainly encouraged a lot of enmity between the two genders, plus writers like Clem Ford are often very keen to label injustices as male problems when the reality is most of us are just as shit scared of walking home alone in the dark as most women are.

I'm not trying to have a whinge about feminism if that's how I'm coming off, TBH your response suggests to me that if anyone has an agenda it's you. This wasn't an exercise in typical forum anti feminist sentiment, I merely highlighted a clear case of people thinking the worst of a man and wondered whether the growing popularity for blogs and writers that propagate this image is fueling this in anyway, not too unreasonable I would have thought.

Your comment came off as generalising feminist blogs as media that generalises men and cries victim. I can see how you could intend it to be specifically about a subset of feminist media, but it is easily read in reverse.


That's kind of the point of drawing attention to this stuff, only they want you to progress to from this point to going "OK, so why is there this opinion. What is it about male behaviour that has feminists so defensive?" Rather than asserting that their position is baseless (no-ones position is ever baseless, even if it is wrong) out-of-hand, reasonable critical thinkers will investigate why these positions are formed. Really, there is a lot of shit that guys take for granted or ignore because it doesn't affect them that affect women and women's rights. Some of that stuff actually affects men too, like divorce law.


You can't create change without challenging norms, you can't challenge norms without creating unease amongst those that have their position negatively affected by challenging the norms. It's important to leverage the best viral communication tools to get any message out, from feminism to nationalist propaganda (hi #StopTheBoats). To affect a change in power structure, you have to appeal to those in power who could be sympathetic. For eg: abolishing slavery; white people needed to agree to stop considering black people as property, black people couldn't just liberate themselves. Feminists can't obtain equality without trying to persuade men that there is a problem. #questionsformen may put some men offside, but it may cause some men to go "whoa, yeah actually it is a bit shit to say that someone can only behave in a certain way whilst I can do what I like without being judged" (for example)


I can categorically guarantee that you, and men in general, are not as shit scared of walking home alone in the dark as women, in general, no matter how much you think you are. That's not to say you aren't shit scared, but it's a whole different ballpark for women.


Oh I 100% have an agenda, everyone does in some way, I embrace it though. I'm passionate about my view on equality (not just gender, but sexual, racial and even religious despite my agnostic beliefs) which is why I aggressively bristle at any sign of dismissal of feminism in male-centric circles like this forum. Apologies for coming off as attacking you too harshly, I read your post in the tone I read all gender discourse on here (and there's a reason for that) but you don't seem to have intended it as such. I still feel your claims are flawed, but at least you aren't crying "feminazis, feminazis everywhere!".

100 percent. men these days are guilty until proven innocent.
All it takes is 1 woman Serial liar to destroy a mans reputation forever....even when the man is found to be innocent.
im not saying all men are innocent but not all women are either

If Draupnir sees my post hes gonna blow up deluxe

Edited by Socawho: 11/5/2015 07:39:04 PM

What a laugh.

The amount of times you slagged off this Clem Ford sheila just on this forum is innumerable. (And that's only on the threads I'm reading.) If you don't like what she writes about don't read what she writes. You seem to have some masochistic joy out of reading something she's written and then becoming outraged.

I don't even know who this lady is but if she had her car tyres slashed tomorrow you'd be a prime suspect.

As for you Soca that's a pretty poor attempt at filling Notorganic's shoes. Not enough pseudo-intellectual waffle for starters and you haven't even tried to call anyone a name or belittle them.

1/10.




Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 11/5/2015 08:04:25 PM

we should chat some time

oh by the way, I dont think slavery has been abolished. maybe you're just talking about one country, a foreign country where most members of this forum dont live, but thats ok.

white people werent and arent the only slave owners either, nor are or were black people the only slaves

if you're going to be passionate about equality as you say, then at least start with a balanced perspective :cool:

think what you think ...my piece wasnt intended for you...only for people who think rationally.

gee you would be fun at parties...people would think you were high on something you couldnt get on the market. :shock:

Edited by Socawho: 11/5/2015 08:23:36 PM

Brilliant.

Barely literate forumite (see forum title just for starters) and serial spammer slags off bloke who has an ability to see issues in colours other than black and white.

Not sure if this is what you meant but this book is an excellent read.

http://www.amazon.com/White-Gold-Forgotten-Africas-European/dp/0340895098

Haha no, no I don't, she's very popular with a lot of people I know so I see a fair bit of her stuff shared across social media and really can't avoid coming across it. I generally stick well clear of it but every now and then there's something monumentally stupid enough to catch your attention and I take the bait.



No, I really wouldn't. I know you've stated you don't know who she is but she identifies on the extreme side of most issues so she's stirred up quite a bit of controversy in her time. She's no saint.

Not specifically, however that's one example of the countless throughout history of other combinations to which I referred.

These days however there's a tendency by those with something to gain politically to refer just to American history as a divisive political football issue.

Of course there is nothing at stake and nothing to be solved. Its all about division and diversion politics, to keep the masses arguing, to keep the masses on the reservation and to use as leverage in an election campaign.

I'm sure someone's figured out how to make money from it too. Media these days is such that each outlet caters to one side of the electoral market specifically. ie left or right, democrat or republican in the case of the USA - and then there is campaign donations from various special interests. Somehow it filters into the Australian conversation because of social media, the internet etc lately, and the slow and steady process of Americanisation of the culture of much of the western world. Now its got to a point that words that they find taboo we can no longer use even though it may have no relevance to the history of this country.


Edited by ricecrackers: 11/5/2015 10:08:41 PM

Munrubenmuz, Clementine ford is basically the Andrew bolt of feminism. You have to see it to believe it.

^agree clem ford is bad of not worse than andrew bilt but alas I like fredsta will be attacked as being a mra.

thats should Mumrubz ever be accused of rape we all will assume he is guilty since he is a man

I'm having a read of her twitter thing now.

Good lord. You'd think the antagonism between men and women was on the level of the Israelis and Palestinians or something like that.

She seems to have a massive chip on her shoulder among other personal issues. If she's causing outrage and provoking reaction however then thats probably why she's getting paid to do it.

Not worth wasting one's time on unless you want to get sucked into the vortex of a manipulative, never-ending and unresolvable 'debate'.

Edited by ricecrackers: 11/5/2015 10:45:32 PM

mumbruz is basically a feminist worshiping nob jockey.

and he has the nerve to say im wrong about my post even when the woman owned up to what she did and said what she did was wrong

Sometimes i wonder if Mumruzs real name is Bruce Jenner

Edited by Socawho: 12/5/2015 07:02:16 AM

Edited by Socawho: 12/5/2015 07:27:01 AM

Speaking about feminist based websites makes you a MRA.

Noice.

-PB

You really are a try hard little man aren't you? With a comprehension problem to boot.

Read what I wrote peanut on the previous page. I said if you don't like what the columnist has to to say stop winding yourself up by reading what she writes.

Ignore her.

I read here she has a chip on her shoulder. Maybe.

Maybe a few blokes around here do also.

This lady needs jail time. Her stupidity has defamed him for life. This poor bugger has to explain himself to his family, his friends and his boss/colleagues because the daft feminazi bitch didn't think and jumped to a conclusion.

Hold up Broseph Guybbels (if you are going with 'feminazi', I feel this is appropriate), at what point was the woman defaming the man or her actions identified as feminist? Feminism was brought up after the fact, in an attempt to blame shift the distrust of men around children to feminist social media (when it is a phenomenon that has been observed since pre-internet times, based around the very real and observable predominance of the male gender in child sexual predators operating in public spaces. This doesn't mean women can't or don't offend, but come on it doesn't even come close to the same numbers.) The viral nature of shaming this guy has nothing to do with feminism, it was posted on Facebook by a paranoid (and clearly wrong) mother and in no way was there a feminist context to it. The viral nature of the shaming has everything to do with social media as a whole, and how instant our consumption of media is these days.

I also reject that this has "defamed him for life". The response in his defence blew up far bigger than the initial accusation, in 6 months no one will even know his name (do you even know it now?)

great way to end your argument,

by calling someone gay and transsexual as if there is something wrong with this. you're a fuckwit. you're an insecure misogynist that tries to use his bloke powers to slag off women.

The reason I brought up feminism is because of the FB comments I saw when this went viral (before the truth came out). Women automatically assume guilt because an infinitely small percentage of males are paedophiles. It's discrimination to do such a thing. To assume guilt without substance with such a damaging claim is horrific.

It is funny to see her hide behind her kids following the backlash. She's only apologising because she's been caught out 'imagining' things. She's only saying sorry because she's copping rightful abuse for jumping the gun and doing something stupid. Stupid doesn't cut it. Not knowing her FB wasn't private doesn't cut it.

This shit hurts families. Don't know about all the other Dads but I'd be cognisant of other peoples thoughts when in public, a simple cuddle could be misconstrued and all of a sudden you're defending yourself. If it were me I would take this lady to court and aim at setting precedence for any other person who slanders an innocent Dad. I don't know if there is, but there should be laws against this with repercussions for the slanderer.

It's the same as rape, this sort of mud always sticks.

Apparently there were death threats, I don't consider that rightful abuse. Yes, I 100% back the man in question if he pursues libel charges, and I support criticism of publicly lynching people on social media, but internet warriors take retaliation too far. The same happened to the guy before his side came out, it's not OK to threaten violence or retribution to people. We have a system that deals will real offenders and real offences. Maybe it is too lenient, or too ineffective (to use your rape example, far more rape victims don't get justice than there are victims of false rape complaints due to the burden of proof- in the justice system- being on the victim to prove lack of consent. The court of public opinion may be different, the public attention span is far shorter lived than a legal record is.) but it is how we deal with offenders as a society. Fix the system, don't endorse vigilantes.

As for your reason for bringing up feminism, it seems you are conflating feminism and misandry. They are not the same, no matter how much (male) internet people tell you they are :)

Death threats are too far. However, this stupid bitch could also be making them up looking for sympathy. She's already hiding behind her kids as it is :lol: She should go on TV and publicly apologise. She put his face all over the internet so why is she afforded the luxury of privacy?

The system is broken because people are soft and so is the justice system. The intention is not to screw them up so badly that following prison they're complete psychos. A noble pursuit I guess. However vigilantism will always persist when people feel that justice was not served. I watched some meth-head get fined $700 (tax payer funded) and get a 3 month suspended sentence for driving my car which was stolen. Because of our system, she was under no obligation to tell police where she got it from and where the rest of my stuff was. Therefore, I ended up out of pocket to get my stuff replaced and the waste of organs that got caught was no worse off.

The term feminism is incorrectly used as it is how many of the people I originally referred to self identify. They stand up for women aka: hate all men irrespective of literally anything.

Feminists can hate men, that doesn't mean that hating men is feminist. Football fans can instigate ethnic violence, that doesn't mean all ethnic violence is due to football.

Sure, you may have seen some self-identifying feminists acting in a manner that you construe as man-hating but call it out for man-hating not feminism, you are just damaging your own argument and fuelling the perpetual mill of ignorance regarding gender equality in the process.

I'm curious about what those seeking 'gender equality' are asking for.

What are your demands?

True but this is getting off the issue entirely. I'm all for gender equality in terms of respect, earnings and opportunities providing men and women are assessed under the same rules. This lady made a stupid call and is hiding behind her kids and common gender stereotypes (that a man taking a photo in the proximity of children must be a predator) to get away with bringing this mans image into disrepute.

She needs to be sued for all her worth. Maybe then she will think before she jumps to a conclusion that can be so damaging.

Edited by benelsmore: 12/5/2015 02:21:31 PM

Would you ask the same question of someone who wanted racial equality?

My personal issues, which I do not claim to be reflective of the movement as a whole, revolve around:

- the use of gendered language to reinforce masculine power structures and norms
- casual objectification of women visually/sexually
- archaic notions of what constitutes a family structure and roles within that structure
- inequitable pay structures for women, and inequitable leave structures for men
- inequitable distribution of gender in positions of power
- observation of dismissal of female authority in professional discourse

This list is purely in the gender sphere. Some of these points are also applicable to POC and LGBTI persons as well.

And I have much less issue with what you are saying here than what you lead with initially. I hope that at least you can see the basis for what I've been saying here and the take away is a little more consideration of how broad a brush you use to paint those you criticise, even if your core intention is sound?

As an aside, this is by far the most civil discussion of feminism I've had on this forum :lol:

lets focus on one at a time shall we? we'll do gender for now

how do you plan to implement reforms based on the above demands?

I carelessly glossed over a misinterpretation and described those concerned with a term of self-identification. I have no problem admitting it when I'm wrong.

You'd think in this day and age that gender equality wouldn't be an issue. In my job - Geotechnical Engineer, the only issues I've had with gender have been manual labour related. As in the petite geologist we had was incapable of doing the grunt work without assistance (carrying large soils samples and equipment etc.). The major issues we had were clients ringing and asking for her to come to site so they could perve on her...... Sad that it exists in this day and age.

Edited by benelsmore: 12/5/2015 02:39:18 PM

god forbid men should be allowed to admire the female form

we cant destroy the human species until we remove such desires from the psyche

This is the exact problem, men who can't disassociate between admiration and objectification.

It is OK to be attracted to women, and to find women beautiful.

It is not OK to judge a woman on her looks. To cat-call and make overt sexual approaches to women in the course of everyday life. To say things like "She's dumb but I'd fuck her" or "She's smart but fugly as hell". To ask Brad Pitt what his latest work is and then Angelina Jolie who she is wearing. To tell women they should smile more, because they will look prettier (as if being pretty is what they should aspire to be.) To use body shaming insults such as "ugly bitch" and "fat cow" to attack a woman, placing emphasis on their appearance. To do this in front of our sons, teaching them it's acceptable and granting implicit permission to do so to their female classmates. To start doing this to girls as young as primary school level. To recoil defensively when you have hurt or offended a woman and have the gall to tell her to "calm down, it's all a bit of fun."

The next time you feel the need to, say, comment on whether Mel McLaughlin is boneable stop and think about why you feel you need to say it. Do you really need to vocalise your opinion on her fuckability in a thread about her interviewing someone, or are you just trying to prove how manly and sexually dominant you are to the rest of the men in the thread?

As to your earlier post. All groundswell societal movements rely on education and evolution. It's why I flagellate myself here in the hope that some minor shifts in values can be fostered. If not in the people I debate, in those watching from the sidelines. I don't expect anyone to agree with me completely, nor do I claim to be the bulletproof paragon of moral decency, but hopefully the issues I raise prompt some thought as to how others outside the cis male gender feel about what we consider normal behaviour.

The problem also exists among feminists who cant disassociate between admiration and objectification.
ie they assume the first is always the latter.

You cant control how everyone thinks and communicates. If you think you're going to change the attitude of anyone by being an online 'activist' via social media or forums, then think again. You're wasting your time.

The very people you're targeting will not be open to accept your message.

I'll get back to this later, too busy now to devote subject time it requires.

What a load of crap, haha. Here's a cheat sheet for you: are you in a context where vocally assessing someone's beauty is acceptable - such as within your own relationship, at a singles mixer, on Tinder etc, or did they overtly give you permission to through words or actions (note: dressing "provocatively" or behaving in any way other than physically interacting with you does not count at all)? If not, you are objectifying. Feminist object to the male gaze in the context of everyday life where it is completely unwarranted.


I may not convert rusted on non-believers, but nothing will. They are the ones that must be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world like the slave owners of the south ;) You can never control what people think, but you can control how they act by ensuring that a critical mass of society will push back against undesirable actions (again, see: racism.)

What a dissenting voice does is give agency to the other side of the story, and allow the more fair-minded observers to make a better informed decision. I don't fight my fight here, I fight my fight in my life and my world and this forum just happens to be somewhere I regularly am. Today I am discussing what it means to be feminist and my problems with the gender dynamic in society. Tonight I may run interference on the train home by starting a conversation about something harmless like sport with a guy who sits down next to a woman, who looks noticeably uncomfortable, and starts pushing her for conversation. Tomorrow I may be helping a female friend or co-worker skill up in my profession. Not all actions have to be as blunt or aggressive as argument. Be it making someone feel a little safer, or advocating for change in your own workforce, or even just checking what language you use can all make a difference.


I'm not targeting the wilfully deaf.

You're entitled to your opinion, but there is no pay discrimination against women. That's a feminist myth which has been well and truly debunked. If there really was an inequitable pay structure where women were paid less for the same work, every single business in the country would sack male staff and replace them with cheaper labour (ie women).

Basic commercial commonsense.

you miss my point ..im not homophobic . the reason why i said he might be Bruce Jenner is because he is so pro feminine that he decided to take the female form.
you misunderstand me. it wasnt meant as a slag towards gay people. or women or transgender. it was aimed specifically at mumbruz

Edited by Socawho: 12/5/2015 06:41:33 PM

Edited by Socawho: 12/5/2015 06:43:39 PM

If you're born with a penis, you're a man. If you're born with a vagina, you're a woman. End of.

Edited by 433: 12/5/2015 06:44:17 PM

Your entitled to your opinion, but you are citing a conspiracy theory. No it hasn't been debunked, yes women are paid less on average than men. Why isn't the workforce all female? Because there is a bias grounded in the notion that all women will get pregnant and take maternity leave, leaving the corporation understaffed and doomed to failure.

Currently in Australia, graduate females earn 4% less than graduate males. Note that number, it's lower than the real-term pay gap that is the cause of much hand-wringing by those who deny wage discrepancy because it is profession based, not overall (women earn less overall because they fill a greater percentage of lower paying jobs. That 4% is comparative to a male in the same job.) If (*if*) that young woman decides to have children, she is statistically more likely to be overlooked for career progression through promotion and thus further financially disadvantaged (conversely, fathers earn more than childless males of the same age!)

You want this to be a myth, you want it badly to be debunked because it doesn't fit comfortably in your world view, but it's the climate change denial of the gender discourse.

Sex v gender. Sex is your chromosomes (XX, XY, Intersex), gender is how you identify. The brain is a complex series of neural interactions and has little to do with your physical container.

You can be sexed male and gendered female, and vice-versa. You can even be non-gendered. Gender is more important than sex, and is far more complicated that your one line assertion.

lmao that's not even a real thing



So it's just a HUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGE coincidence that most people with penises "identify" as men and people with vaginas "identify" as female.?

Sources?

Because here's mine

You may not have intended to slag off gay people, or women/trans people, but you did call the person you were attacking a "knob jockey". You are asserting being gay as an undesirable quality that lessens someone. That's attacking gay people, whether it was your intention or not.

As for the Jenner thing, ehhhhh. It's a tough one and you probably shouldn't have gone there in a public discourse. Suggesting that a man must either be a woman or want to be a woman to care about women's rights devalues these rights as something unimportant that a man shouldn't care about and can very easily be read in a bad way.

I for one don't believe you are homophobic, misogynistic, or inherently bigoted. I certainly don't know you well enough to make that call. You were, however, carelessly using a homophobic slur and it should be called out as such. Maybe not so harshly, but it's better than ignoring problematic language.

I'm sure you trust your opinion piece (that doesn't contradict what I said at all, just trivialises the fact there's a smaller gap) as gospel, but I trust the Australian Bureau of Statistics Census Data, which has no agenda and for two consecutive censuses had women earning between 4 and 8% less in the same occupation over 85% of occupations. I won't change your mind, but who'd expect that of someone who doesn't believe that intersex people exist when it is medically recognised.

As for gender identity, no it isn't a coincidence that cis gender is most common. The hormonal changes associated with sex influence but do not cause gender.

You are incredibly insular and close-minded. I feel sorry for you that you struggle so much to understand the problems of others.

About 1% of the population identify as the opposite gender. You could also say that most people with penises like to have sex with women. But not all people with penises do.

What if you're born with both?

Using any Hollywood examples is a bit ridiculous imo. Have you seen any talk shows/interviews involving Bradley Cooper, Ryan Gosling or Channing Tatum. It's literally just women screaming at them to take their clothes off, hosts encouraging it and hardly any discussion about their actual work. Then there's movies like Magic Mike etc.

Show me that PhD of yours in genetics please mate. Yet again you show yourself to be fucking clueless :lol:

You could literally saunter on over to Wikipedia to actually learn something, but instead I'm sure you'll keep spending your time spouting 100% scientifically incorrect shit like that.

On second thoughts removing words from the language may help someone like you communicate a bit more efficiently.
You have a tendency to ramble which makes focusing on any particular point of discussion difficult.

In an earlier post you made remarks which I now interpret as assumptive on how I (rather than the hypothetical I) might react.

You are way off the mark and I wouldnt describe your comments on this topic so far as fair minded.

Given you're not actually a woman, I dont think you can empathise to how a woman feels in different situations.

As for your points about when "the male gaze" is warranted and when it is not... you do realise many people meet their wives and partners in the working environment - one of those places you deem unacceptable to even look at the opposite sex.

Back to objectification, everyone is objectified. That's what happens when others know nothing about you.

The government objectifies you, your bank objectifies you and women very much objectify men whether for physical or financial reasons. edit: women also objectify women. Ever wonder why all the girls employed in dress shops are pretty? Because its better marketing. That's just the way the world works. This is a pointless argument which goes nowhere and will solve nothing.

If you havent been paying attention, a critical mass has pushed back against undesirable actions. We dealt with most of this 40 years ago. Its only stirred up now for political and corporate reasons. That is to the gain of political parties and corporate entities that exploit outrage. (which is largely based in appealing to narcissism rather than altruism. the me generation never ended... its gotten much worse)



Edited by ricecrackers: 12/5/2015 08:34:40 PM

1. language is language. get over it and call a spade a spade. lawyers and activists will always dream up reasons why we should remove more and more words from the english language. this is cultural marxism and this is not ok.

2. largely covered in previous post

3. archaic notions that have worked for thousands of years and hence the survival of the human race. statistics show that children growing up with one bio parent families have less chance of success in life and more chance of prison. that doesnt mean its a sure thing, but there's nothing wrong with promoting a successful model.

4. pay structures are already equal. the application of them may not be, but this is entirely subjective and any solution that involves equal pay for equal work being enforced by government will result in less women being employed as the price on prejudice will have been removed. it will be counter productive to your aims.

5. so you're talking about quotas in government? do you think that will solve anything?
you do you realise that governments are decided on a popular vote in a democracy?
you do realise that our head of state is actually a woman?

6. i havent witnessed this personally. In the corporate world actually men are terrified of women in power and afford them more respect as a result than their female colleagues.



Edited by ricecrackers: 12/5/2015 08:23:09 PM

That's because the Grand Poobah of the MRA 442 club is currently banned. Funny how the tone of the forum has been vastly improved since then.

For sure some of his underlings pop their heads in now and then but they're far less likely to stick their heads above the parapet now that their Dear Leader isn't about.

Another point on women in employment, a lot of it is their own doing. This country and a lot of the western world via mostly popular culture, celebrity culture etc makes a lot of employment options seem unappealing to women and hence women dont go in certain spheres of employment by their own choice because they're so influenced by popular culture.

This didnt exist to the same degree in eastern european nations where you'll find many more women tackling jobs in certain technical and scientific fields by proportion than you will here.

I worked for a time in one of these male dominated fields and the imports from eastern europe were far better and more abundant than any of the female options available who were raised here.

When I went to university you'd see quite a few women doing biology and medicine, but near to none in physics, computer science, mathematics and other hard sciences that werent from asia. Why? because those latter fields werent marketed as sexy, they didnt have a cool TV show that made them appealing.

Backpedal all you want peanut the writing is metaphorically on the wall. No one has missed the point. You've nailed your colours to the mast for all to see.



So would you like to clarify exactly what you meant by that "specifically"?

You've used a homophobic slur to insult me and then wondered if I'm transgender because apparently I've identified myself as a feminist. (As if that is some sort of a crime.)

Not only that you've assumed, wrongly, that only women can be feminists.

Not that I give a shit what you think but for the record I am a feminist. (If you have a wife, a daughter, a mother, an aunt, a niece or a sister you should be too.)

As for the rest of your drivel it's hard to know where to start.

Go back to page one and read it again. No one said you were wrong. My comment was (with regards to 433 Fredsta) that if a columnist, in this case a Clem Ford, annoys you so much, stop reading what she's writing.

That was it.

You've gone off half cocked and instead of keeping schtum you've continued posting and fully, 100%, embarrassed yourself.

Just leave it be dude.


Edited to clarify initial poster.


Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 12/5/2015 09:10:35 PM

What homophobic slur did I use....please enlighten me...

otherwise shut up and take your medicine

Edited by Socawho: 12/5/2015 09:16:38 PM

@ Scoll, Inalah and Draupnir.

Not to blow smoke up your arses or anything but I am heartened to see you blokes go to the trouble of making comprehensive and well thought out rebuttals and arguments whenever these threads come up.

Long may it continue.

@ Crackers.

You've become semi-reasonable and readable over the last week or so. Congrats. (Are you feeling well?)

How is feminist worshipping nob jockey a slur?

try walking in my shoes in this place and see how long you can remain reasonable for

......................MvFCArsenal16.8






Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 12/5/2015 11:34:56 PM

Ummm what??

these things are EXACTLY the problem. womens work is undervalued. womens lives are undervalued. female dominated industries (occupations) are underpaid compared to male dominated industries.

positions - they are not given the same level of advancement as men. so they are paid less again.

female dominated education streams are also undervalued compared to male dominated. equivalent levels of education in female dominated industries attract a lower pay level than the equivalent for male dominated industries. if you want more on this you should read up on the recent social services court case that has bought about a much overdue pay rise for many women.

tenure and work hours. women are often involved in unpaid external duties. they are socially and societally lumped with responsibilities that prevent equal representation in the work force and therefore equal pay.


Edited by inala brah: 12/5/2015 11:13:01 PM

It's nothing sexist about it - it's supply and demand. Anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of economics would understand this.

Anyone can become a primary school teacher/nurse, whereas being an engineer/doctor requires loads of hard work. Women as a whole (of course there are numerous exceptions to this) gravitate towards less STEM orientated courses. Therefore they make less money. Once again, there are ofcourse women who are in STEM. But looking at it from a statistical point of view females tend to choose social work over hard sciences.

It's their choice, and you can hardly describe basic supply/demand as "sexist".

Says the bloke telling me a person with a penis can be a woman :lol:

:lol:

......................433



That's nearly all of them.

This thread would be 4x in length and blocked by now had notor not been banned lol.

-PB

i like Draupy being the good fella he is but im gonna have to disagree with him on this one 😀
maybe Draupy thinks we are like those plants that dont need a partner and just impregnate oursrlves

Edited by Socawho: 13/5/2015 08:42:57 AM

geez drink a teaspoon of cement will you , youre not even gay so why are you even offended at all. and it was just a figure of speech like calling you an idiot...if gays here are offended i apologize since it wasnt referring to that group. just mumbruz


Edited by Socawho: 13/5/2015 11:51:42 AM

Being offended on behalf of someone else is all the rage today.

-PB

Nah its all the rage to be offended by someone disagreeing that femnazi'ss are freaking idiots

seems like it

ill start a hashtag to make him feel better...

#illridewithmumbruz

oh wait he might get offended by that as well

Mumbruzs life wouldnt be conplete if there was someone out there that didnt offend him.

Edited by Socawho: 13/5/2015 11:50:16 AM

Edited by Socawho: 13/5/2015 11:53:29 AM

:shock:

Wow. I honestly don't understand how someone could physically type that out and then read it back without realizing how much of a giant twat they sound like.

Why are there so many pro feminists on here?...
it seems
.....if you dont put women on a pedastal you are mysogonist.
....if you call out someone for doing something wrong AND they are women you are mysogonist
...if you are proud that you are born with a penis you are mysogonist
...if you call offend someone by calling them something they arent or are ...you are mysogonist
...if you dont think the same as mumbruz you are mysogonist.
fuck me dead...no wonder women think there is a man shortage in Australia.

i dont hate women but it seems that if you dont put them on a pedastal or just engage in any sort of meaningful debate then you get accused for hating them. WTF is wrong with some people?

go get a castration and become an eunach...you dont deserve to be in the realm
of men...especially you mumbruz


Edited by Socawho: 13/5/2015 01:42:09 PM

Edited by Socawho: 13/5/2015 01:56:29 PM

Edited by Socawho: 13/5/2015 01:57:35 PM

Fuck me dead are you retarded or what?

I'll give you a $1000 if you can find in this thread where I called you a misogynist you brain dead moron.

Again for the special children here with learning diffculties.

Go back to page one and read it again. No one said you were wrong. My comment was (with regards to Fredsta) that if a columnist, in this case a Clem Ford, annoys you so much, stop reading what she's writing.

That was it.

Then you slagged me off because oh my god "someone disagress with me".

Called me a "feminist worshipping nob jockey"

Wondered if my real name is Bruce Jenner.

Implied a bunch of other shit.

Your idiocy is bottomless pit.

Hey Soca you're a brain dead typical Asian fuckstick but "no offence" because I know you have a brain and it's just a figure of speech.

No offence.

You seem to manage it OK everytime you post. Any hints?

not aimed at me you say mumbruz. you got a short memory span....or maybe you just sprout shit and then you just forget about it because you have the attention span of a goldfish.
you are like a bull in a china shop...so out of control to the point where you probably need a strait jacket

go jam it.



Edited by Socawho: 13/5/2015 02:12:19 PM

Edited by Socawho: 13/5/2015 02:14:16 PM

Try again.

I know english isn't your first language but where exactly in that sentence does it say you are wrong.

I said "that's a pretty poor attempt at filling Notorganic's shoes".

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

-PB

i know what you meant by that statement since we all know what The NO viewpoint is.
dont act all stupid by thinking your subtle dig at me wasnt anything but.
you are all over the shop...go clean yourself up son.... it must be a long day for you....like every day 😄😄

Edited by Socawho: 13/5/2015 02:20:20 PM

Edited by Socawho: 13/5/2015 02:25:53 PM

I enjoy being a cunt.

What i don't enjoy is being a condescending prick when a poster who is quite clearly harmless expresses himself in a way that is offensive and then apologizes profusely for it. You love surfacing when topics like this are being discussed but you are flat out incapable of tolerating an alternative point of view but somehow think it's everyone else that's the narrow minded dickhead.

I enjoy acting like a bit of a c*nt here sometimes but that's because away from here I'm a much more friendly and easy going bloke, I just like to vent a few things here. You on the other hand really seem to lack an off switch and take yourself way too seriously, you genuinely seem like the sort of bloke everyone prays they don't get stuck chatting to one on one at a party.