Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Omar

  1. Decided that I'd push to 23 year olds. Choice sample:


    "My self-summary

    my life is about goals, here are my 4 current goals:


    1. to hold a massive python, boa or anaconda

    2. to be eaten by a python, boa or anaconda

    3. to have insects on me naked

    4. to be beaten up"

    • What the [bleep] is going on in this profile? I can relate to your appreciation of deafheaven but I don't think I can help you with your snake fetish.

      Sent at 9:58pm



      Sent at 10:07pm


    • sorry *lifestyle I could barely type though the white rage

      Sent at 10:07pm


    [Edit] I think I just have a soft spot for indie chicks. I need to get out of this town.
  2. Face-heel turn!


    Here's a good feminist article. If you think "but not all men are rapists!" is a good objection to Brownmiller's claim that "[rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear," you should probably read it, because you don't understand the quote.

    Also, de jure discrimination (as opposed to de facto/privately enforced discrimination) can still exist even if on paper, every individual is subject to the same rule. For example, if the law says that the only foods that can be sold as "hummus" must contain at least 5% tahini, and only one company has been making hummus that way, there's a very good reason to be suspicious (it's actually happening, I'm not making this up). A more relevant example would be gun control: granting* that it prevents the reduction of power differentials in violent altercations and that women are typically the ones who would be getting the opportunity to defend themselves if they were allowed guns, those laws are discriminatory against women, in application if not in principle.

    (This is just an example of implicit de jure discrimination, not a claim that gun control, in particular, is sexist.)

    • Like 1
  3. Looks like I found what I was looking for. From r/OkCupid:


    So, I felt this was an appropriate subreddit to post this too; but I just wanted to share my thoughts.

    24 year old male; At the start of this year, I had never been on a single date. Not one. That's why I decided to sign up with OKcupid and a few other online dating sites.

    Lo and behold, I started to actually go out on dates. Not many, but the fact that I was getting any interest was a huge morale booster. I was thrilled! But as time went on, I realized that none of the girls were ever really interested in going out again. There was one girl, one I really did like and went on a couple of dates with (I even got my first kiss; which will remain one of of the happiest moments of my life), but she was the exception to the rule and it didn't last.

    But this isn't a "Why won't woman date me post?"; I realize that I'm entitled to nothing; it's more of a revelation that I'm just not ready for this. I'm not sure when I will be. I've got no self esteem, no future aspirations, so it's no surprise my dates haven't been interested in me.

    So, I'm probably going to hang up my coat and call it a day. While I was hoping to find somebody to give meaning to my life, I need to become someone who can provide value to someone else. An asset rather then a liability. It may take me a year, maybe two years, maybe more but one day I hope I can make somebody else happy.

    Mainly, I posted this for anyone else who may be feeling frustrated with online dating or dating in general. Don't be so quick to judge other people in their lack of interest and first examine yourself.

    Maybe quitting altogether is a bit extreme, but damn, dat attitude.

    • Like 1

    Excellent points, well thought out post.


    1) I think the comparison to Jim Crow is more appropriate, you're right, in that the arrangement is dependent on the relationship being an inherently unequal one. The main difference I'd note is that du jure discrimination has been virtually eliminated in the Western world. Another difference is that I don't think the discrimination is as strong today as it was with racism back then. Some men are misogynist and sexualize women at every turn. The majority, I'm convinced, are perfectly decent human beings and do not, but the problem is the former group aren't challenged nearly enough by the latter to change their attitudes or behaviour.


    2) Good questions. There's certainly more men in political office, and since politics and economics dominates our newspapers, you might argue that accounts for the increased number of articles about male subjects. What's more concerning, though, is the manner in which women are presented on front pages of newspapers. In 2012, the top two woman most likely to be photographed (by far) were Kate and Pippa Middleton, perhaps not surprisingly following the wedding, but this was not followed by any description of what they've been up to or how this is even newsworthy, as they would have done for a politician, but followed by a blow-by-blow account of what they were wearing and how they appeared. I cannot recall the last time Michael Gove's or George Osbourne's attire was picked apart thread-by-thread to accompany a largely irrelevant and superficial account of their policies for education or the economy (of course, the irony there is they suit up quite well, being politicians in the public eye; perhaps some men wouldn't mind some free advice?). Again, though, the implication that women aren't there do anything useful, only to look pretty while men do the real work, is made, an association which was made ad nauseum with Diana.


    3) This one is frequently brought up as a counter-argument to feminism. "Well, men have it bad too in some ways". I'm not going to argue against that, and I don't think most rational feminists would either, at least not the ones that follow the definition of 'wanting equality between both genders'. If we're going into more sociological territory and discussing power imbalances, though, I'd like to give a personal account. A female friend of mine who went to college to study car mechanics and engineering, but had to arrange her own work placement to pass the course, and was told by every garage in my hometown that, "You're a bird... you must be joking!". Women can't very well place themselves in hazardous occupations if discrimination stops them from even accessing those occupations in the first place, wouldn't you agree?


    4) I doubt if your male baker was the Secretary of State, you'd ask him what designer shoes he wears, though. OK, you go to your baker for bread and you're not interested in his ideas about the world, I get that. But when it's your job to be foreign minister for the most powerful country on Earth... Is your choice of designer labels what the people are really interested in? 

    1) Just off the top of my head, sexual assault courts in universities in the US are still shitty. Bad for the victims, bad for the accused. Other genders are still marginalized de jure, too, and it hasn't been very long since marital rape was made illegal.

    2) Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly are they responsible for? My understanding is that for all intents and purposes the whole royal family just sits there and looks nice.

    2, 3) You know what? I wouldn't mind so much if everyone did all my work for me. I think it would be kind of neat if men weren't the ones who were expected to go to war in order to protect women. I mean, it would suck to an extent, because paternalism really bugs me, but I think I'd take it over being sent to kill and get killed by people I don't even know.


    You see what I mean? This is a little bit like saying welfare payments are paternalistic. They are, sure, but they're also free money that was taken from someone else. If you want to spend another twenty-some minutes listening to girlwriteswhat, look up her video on male disposability.

    4) Lil' Wayne and Rick Ross are very happy to tell me how high status they are, and then demonstrate this with a list of things they own (cashmere socks [bleep]!). So what?

  5. Well he had autism, so he lacks a brain capable of empathy and communication skills. Thats my beef with the whole "misagany lead to murder campaign", yes this guy had selfish beliefs but he literally lacks the brain structures needed to change that. That said this could have all been avoided if the mental health system took the warning signs more seriously. 

    Careful with this. Yes, you need to have mental health issues in order to do this kind of thing. That's kind of like saying you need hands in order to strangle people.

  6. If we were talking about race in that context, we'd be calling it apartheid, wouldn't we?

    No. Apartheid was legally enforced. It was comparable to Jim Crow laws.


    Yes, mostly relating to the media. Over four fifths of mainstream newspapers' front page stories are dedicated to male subjects.

    Why do you think this is the case? Are more things happening to men? Are newspapers deliberately not covering things that happen to women? Are readers less interested in what happens to women? Not a rhetorical question, just not sure in what sense you think this is evidence of sexism.


    Only a fifth of frontpage stories are written by female journalists. Meanwhile, Page 3 shoots continue to depict (exclusively young and sexually attractive) women in an overtly sexualised manner.* Studies show barely any difference between the language describing women used in lads' magazines and language used by those convicted of sexual assault. In music videos, men are routinely depicted as suave and suited up, throwing scantly clad women around like confetti on a dancefloor.

    And 90% of workplace injuries happen to men. Is it any more fair that men are disproportionately expected to put the integrity of their body at stake in order to get a job? Or is doing things you wouldn't do if you weren't getting paid for it exactly what working is?


    None of these examples have anything to do with wealth or a pay gap, but continue to reinforce the idea that a woman is only worth what men find sexually attractive about them. And even if you're lucky enough as a woman to be judged as sexually attractive, the discrimination doesn't stop there.

    But the same thing is true for everyone. I don't care about my baker as an end in and of him or herself. I care about how good he is at baking bread. This is totally normal in a society with more people than you can know personally.


    What of your right to say No? Well, not according to Justin Timberlake ('I know you like it...') or Robin Thicke ('I know you want it...'). Very clearly, and in a very accessible, visual format, a link is drawn between sexual desire on the one hand, and aggression, control and ownership of women on the other, for all young men and boys to see.

    I won't comment on Timberlake because I don't remember the song, but you'll note that Thicke hates "blurred lines," not lines. The song is about mixed signals ("the way you grab me [what way, we're not sure, but apparently such that she...] / must want to get nasty"), which, in the interest of consent being taken seriously, should not be part of the lead-up to sex. That song also contrasts Thicke to another man who tried, and failed, to domesticate the woman in question, so I'm not sure where you're seeing that coverture-esque ownership thing.

    • Like 1

    As far as this guy is concerned, though, it really has no relevance whatsoever. He's single because he feels sorry for himself and wishes a 'rescuer' would come save him from the rut he's dug himself into. That's not how life works, whether you're a man or a woman.

    Don't you think that agreeing with such a principle contradicts support for feminism?


    Feminism sort of falls apart if you believe that women are responsible for their own wellbeing.


    You're confusing self-respect and respecting other people, i.e. politics.


    On a practical level, it's much better to adjust yourself to this than to try to change something that cannot be changed. In fact, out of respect for what little freedom you have, you owe it to yourself to do what you can instead of wallowing in self-pity. That's why people who refuse to take ownership for their own well-being are repugnant.


    But by itself, this doesn't lead to the conclusion that there's no such thing as fairness, or to a kind of fatalism. Still out of recognition of the fact that what you do is what you have decided to do, you have to take responsibility for what you do to others, whether right or wrong. Respecting other people's rights (in our case, choosing to honour women's choices) is part of respecting yourself as a moral agent.

    • Like 1
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.