The women's march shows it's true colors

[ruby sparks]

Not 'arguably' small. It's undeniably small. The height is also more suited to women than men. And it's not just seating.

That said, before we start to make the case that men are disadvantaged in general, the designed world is still often designed for men. 'Standard Person' in ergonomic design is a young male.

Receipts.

There is also 'Reference Man' in medical research.

Receipts.

This affects many things, from car seats and seat belts, to crash test dummies, CPR mannequins, dosages for radiation and medicines, the size of mobile phones and other gadgets,

Receipts.

stab vests, health and safety at work equipment,

Receipts.

I've been in hospital before. I've seen gloves for the nurses and doctors in 'small' and 'medium', the only options, that wouldn't fit over my skeleton hand.

office environments , toilet provision (ever noticed the queues outside women's toilets?),

Women have the same or more toilet space allocated to them. Nature is to blame for their inefficient urination, not society.

workplace temperatures (the standard levels of comfort suit men),

Because office temperature is predicated on the requirement that men are required to wear a three piece suit to work to look professional, while women can wear sleeveless spaghetti strap summer dresses and still look professional.

speech recognition software and so on (google's software is apparently 70% more likely to recognise a male voice, as are the systems in some cars).

Receipts.

Obviously, to say that typically male postures and body language are necessarily about power is wide of the mark. As would saying that they are not necessarily. Some of the fuss about manspreading made by some is a bit ott in my opinion, and there are a number of reasons for it that have nothing to do with power, imo, but it is also generally the case that men do typically adopt and display 'dominance' in this aspect of social interactions between humans, and it is more acceptable for them to do so. Traditionally, women have been discouraged from doing so. To some extent, such gender stereotype norms are still persistent. Also, we're apes. It would be surprising if there were no differences of the sort that exist in many species, including our 'cousins', who also feature some general physical differences between the sexes.

Yes, humans are sexually dimorphic, though feminism since the 1960s has generally falsely denied that biology has any role to play in it. (I have personal experience of a feminist colleague claiming that men are stronger than women because male children are given more protein than female children. This is the kind of mental derangement you have to deal with when talking to a feminist.)

I'm just going to say three things to you.

1. Do your own research. You do not appear to do any at all beyond googling for stuff to trigger you.
2. Consider adopting a more balanced take on issues generally.
3. Regarding this:

Women have the same or more toilet space allocated to them. Nature is to blame for their inefficient urination, not society.

Quite apart from the fact that you will not have checked to see if the first part is correct, the second part is beyond ridicule in any case.

I am now done on the thread derail regarding manspreading and the like. Others may wish to keep on discussing it with you.

 

[Metaphor]

People must be extremely strange in Australia. Here in the US, gloves in medical settings come on a wide range of sizes from XS to XXL. The fingers of the S and XS are too long for me. Most women do not need above a M but most of the men I’ve worked with use at least a L—or think they do.

We are not strange, except inasmuch we are in the unquestioned grip of feminist delusion, like much of the West.

Whatever stuff you’ve heard, it is actually true in some cultures that boy children and men are fed better and more protein than girls and women.

I don't doubt that it could be true. What I doubt is that men's physical strength advantage over women is a result of protein differentials in childhood. That idea is so deranged, and you have to be a true believer feminist to even entertain the notion.

There are gender typical behaviors but many/most individuals diverge from the stereotypes or typical in at least one behavior. The whole: girls love pink trope is marketing and cheap ass production limiting choices for girls, for example.

Zero girls in the universe have ever been limited by "girls love pink". Zero. Here, I'll explain to you why. Girls can buy whatever they want, and they are neither forbidden by shops nor the law from buying whatever colour they want.

It's boys that have a cultural proscription from having and enjoying pink things. Do try to keep up.

Girls were not force fed pink when I was growing up. Nor were they allowed sports. Boys were not assumed to enjoy cooking or literature, which was weird as we rarely read any female authors or even heard about female accomplishments at school.

People of all varieties say all sorts of silly stuff. No need to take it as any more than people saying stupid stuff.

Feminists don't say only "silly stuff". Feminists say damaging, batshit-insane, man-hating, deranged, unscientific, unevidenced, sexist garbage in mainstream media outlets.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm just going to say three things to you.

1. Do your own research. You do not appear to do any at all beyond googling for stuff to trigger you.

You are incorrect. I have not, for a number of years, specifically sought out "triggering" material. I used to routinely visit feminist websites. I no longer do this.

2. Consider adopting a more balanced take on issues generally.

I see.

Quite apart from the fact that you will not have checked to see if the first part is correct, the second part is beyond ridicule in any case.

If women were more efficient at pissing than men, they wouldn't have toilet lines going out the door. Men can hold more liquid in their bladders and it takes them less time to get rid of it. I'm sorry this offends you. I'd tell you to blame God, but she isn't taking an audience right now.

 

[ZiprHead]

You are incorrect. I have not, for a number of years, specifically sought out "triggering" material. I used to routinely visit feminist websites. I no longer do this.

From looking at your profile and looking at the threads started by you, it sure looks like you seek out thing to be triggered by.

 

[Toni]

We are not strange, except inasmuch we are in the unquestioned grip of feminist delusion, like much of the West.



I don't doubt that it could be true. What I doubt is that men's physical strength advantage over women is a result of protein differentials in childhood. That idea is so deranged, and you have to be a true believer feminist to even entertain the notion.

There are gender typical behaviors but many/most individuals diverge from the stereotypes or typical in at least one behavior. The whole: girls love pink trope is marketing and cheap ass production limiting choices for girls, for example.

Zero girls in the universe have ever been limited by "girls love pink". Zero. Here, I'll explain to you why. Girls can buy whatever they want, and they are neither forbidden by shops nor the law from buying whatever colour they want.

It's boys that have a cultural proscription from having and enjoying pink things. Do try to keep up.

Girls were not force fed pink when I was growing up. Nor were they allowed sports. Boys were not assumed to enjoy cooking or literature, which was weird as we rarely read any female authors or even heard about female accomplishments at school.

People of all varieties say all sorts of silly stuff. No need to take it as any more than people saying stupid stuff.

Feminists don't say only "silly stuff". Feminists say damaging, batshit-insane, man-hating, deranged, unscientific, unevidenced, sexist garbage in mainstream media outlets.

I’m currently waiting in an ER (but we are fine—no worries) so I cannot parse each misconception you have stated here. I’ll just say that are wrong on every single point you have attempted to make here. Girls cannot buy what isn’t available to them and since they are children they do not have the economic means nor agency or drivers’ licenses to make their own purchasing choices. Some parents are much more inclined to go along with stereotypes than others. My mother was. My father was not so I was allowed to play football and basketball and even to have my own basketball thanks to my father although no official games, purely recreational. My mother would have forbidden me if not overridden by my father. Marketing hard changed between my own childhood and my daughter’s. It was not easy to find clothing for her that was not pink or purple.

For the rest, you’re just not right. I’m sitting in an exam room right now and I see boxes of XL gloves. No XS. I know that they stock gloves according to the sizes required by the staff in each work area.

PA is back with some info and stuff to go over and sign.

I’m so sorry that you live in a society where women are actually asserting their rights. Must be really really difficult for you.

Yes: sarcasm.

(Side note: no worries—we’re fine.)

 

[ruby sparks]

You are incorrect. I have not, for a number of years, specifically sought out "triggering" material. I used to routinely visit feminist websites. I no longer do this.

Good for you. Small steps. Keep up the good work. Did you actually do that. Seriously?

If women were more efficient at pissing than men, they wouldn't have toilet lines going out the door. Men can hold more liquid in their bladders and it takes them less time to get rid of it. I'm sorry this offends you.

Unbelievable. And completely missing the point.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am now done on the thread derail regarding manspreading and the like. Others may wish to keep on discussing it with you.

It's funny how a one sentence comment can trigger such a lengthy derail and then complaints about said derail ending in the stomping of feet, lengthy personal attacks and judgments, and then more complaints about said derail.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Receipts

Huh?

 

[ruby sparks]

... we are in the unquestioned grip of feminist delusion, like much of the West.

Wow. That's actually a bit scary, to think that you actually believe that.

 

[Toni]

You are incorrect. I have not, for a number of years, specifically sought out "triggering" material. I used to routinely visit feminist websites. I no longer do this.

Good for you. Small steps. Keep up the good work. Did you actually do that. Seriously?

If women were more efficient at pissing than men, they wouldn't have toilet lines going out the door. Men can hold more liquid in their bladders and it takes them less time to get rid of it. I'm sorry this offends you.

Unbelievable. And completely missing the point.

Not to mention, medically and anatomically inaccurate.

 

[ruby sparks]

Women have the same or more toilet space allocated to them. Nature is to blame for their inefficient urination, not society.

If women were more efficient at pissing than men, they wouldn't have toilet lines going out the door. Men can hold more liquid in their bladders and it takes them less time to get rid of it. I'm sorry this offends you. I'd tell you to blame God, but she isn't taking an audience right now.

No, actually, this is just too crass to pass over without additional comment.

First, it's a double-standard, coming from someone who had literally just complained about designed facilities for men not being adequate (seats) about which I agreed you had a fair point.

Second, and more importantly, if women need, by various reasons of biology, more toilet space than men, then it is surely not acceptable in principle to just say 'tough luck ladies'.

Third, the specific reasons that women on average need more square feet of toilet space are multiple. Among them are that they may need to change sanitary appliances. Being pregnant severely limits bladder capacity (and this problem can persist afterwards too, see: stress incontinence). Women more often are the ones who will be taking ambulant children to the toilet and this will increase average usage times. As for babies, they may also have to change nappies, if there is no dedicated separate nappy-changing room. Sometimes they use the toilets (however unsuitable they are) to breast feed (it's frowned upon in many public places) or express milk. There are more elderly and impaired women than men. More men can use a toilet facility of a certain square footage because they are able to use a urinal and urinals take up less space. Men on average either don't wash their hands as often or don't wash them as thoroughly as women.

Toilet facilities are not products of nature, they are designed. Most architects are men, and ladies toilet facilities are a bit of a blind spot. It's well-recognised in the profession. It's only recently been something that has been addressed. But most buildings (in other words most places where toilets are currently used) were designed when women's needs were not properly taken into account. I read that there wasn't even one ladies toilet within reasonable reach of the voting floor of the US House of Representatives until 2011.

Your comments are just embarrassing and appalling.

 

[KeepTalking]

Good point. Why do we hear so much from "feminists" about exaggerations like the gender pay gap and idiculousness like manspreading but so rarely about actual repression of women in some parts of the world?

Good point? Far from it. Would you have asked the Suffragettes why you weren't hearing from them about the inability of women to vote in China?

Suffragettes actually were oppressed. The difference in situations wasn't that massive then as it is compared to "feminists" today complaining bout manspreading and women getting acid thrown in their faces and getting murdered for leaving the house.

Good point. Why do we hear so much from "feminists" about exaggerations like the gender pay gap and idiculousness like manspreading but so rarely about actual repression of women in some parts of the world?

Good point? Far from it. Would you have asked the Suffragettes why you weren't hearing from them about the inability of women to vote in China?

The suffragettes were actively campaigning for the right to vote, which they did not have, and probably believed that women everywhere should have that right. That doesn't compare to 4th wave feminists complaining about manspreading and ignoring women getting arrested for refusing to wear a burqa. It is almost as if manspreading is more oppressive than having to wear a burqa.

You both missed the point by a mile. The Women's March movement is a Western movement dealing with issues that confront women in the west. Much as one would not expect the Suffragettes to push for the right for women to vote in places other than the USA, you should not expect this movement to confront women's issues in more oppressive nations. They have issues right here in the West that they can address, and hopefully drive change in the West in doing so. Why would they want to drag in other issues from nations where they do not live, and have virtually no path for making changes?

But, if you really feel so bad about the lack of a movement to help women in those oppressive nations, perhaps you should get off your ass and start one.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

But, if you really feel so bad about the lack of a movement to help women in those oppressive nations, perhaps you should get off your ass and start one.

Don't they already have one?

 

[KeepTalking]

But, if you really feel so bad about the lack of a movement to help women in those oppressive nations, perhaps you should get off your ass and start one.

Don't they already have one?

They couldn't possibly have one, after all, as far as some posters in this thread seem to see it, if the Women's March aint doing it, it don't exist.

 

[laughing dog]

Seating in public transport is more suited to women than to men.

Have you run an appropriately designed empirical study on this issue? If not, your observations cannot be taken seriously.

 

[laughing dog]

None of this excuses spreading your legs so that you take up more than one seat. But to imagine it's a power play by the men who do it is bonkers.

And to prioritize such trivialities over actual repression of women, and celebrating somebody like Sarsour as one of your core people is even more bonkers. It took them long enough to turf her out.

Next time, I am sure you will be consulted about their appropriate priorities and who should lead them.

 

[blastula]

https://forward.com/opinion/431550/...fies-anti-semitic-muslims-they-are-betraying/

They got rid of the well-known anti-semites and brought in another.

The original intent was good but it's been subverted.

As long as they are anti-manspreading, I'm on board.

 

[Metaphor]

You are incorrect. I have not, for a number of years, specifically sought out "triggering" material. I used to routinely visit feminist websites. I no longer do this.

From looking at your profile and looking at the threads started by you, it sure looks like you seek out thing to be triggered by.

These events are happening whether I read about them on mainstream media sites or not. I suppose I could instead try to remain wholly ignorant of them and stop reading.

 

[Metaphor]

Seating in public transport is more suited to women than to men.

Have you run an appropriately designed empirical study on this issue? If not, your observations cannot be taken seriously.

Observing uncontroversial differences between men and women (at least, so far, saying men are taller than women hasn't gotten someone cancelled), and having epistemological privilege that Toni doesn't have (in that I am a man), I'm confident I'm more justified in conclusions flowing from physical observations of public transport seating than Toni ought be confident that she has insight into the imagined psychology of manspreaders.

 

[Metaphor]

No, actually, this is just too crass to pass over without additional comment.

First, it's a double-standard, coming from someone who had literally just complained about designed facilities for men not being adequate (seats) about which I agreed you had a fair point.

It's not a double standard. I did not insist that public transport cater more to men while also insisting that toilet space should remain equal. I am merely observing reality.

Second, and more importantly, if women need, by various reasons of biology, more toilet space than men, then it is surely not acceptable in principle to just say 'tough luck ladies'.

I didn't.

Third, the specific reasons that women on average need more square feet of toilet space are multiple. Among them are that they may need to change sanitary appliances. Being pregnant severely limits bladder capacity (and this problem can persist afterwards too, see: stress incontinence). Women more often are the ones who will be taking ambulant children to the toilet and this will increase average usage times. As for babies, they may also have to change nappies, if there is no dedicated separate nappy-changing room. Sometimes they use the toilets (however unsuitable they are) to breast feed (it's frowned upon in many public places) or express milk. There are more elderly and impaired women than men. More men can use a toilet facility of a certain square footage because they are able to use a urinal and urinals take up less space. Men on average either don't wash their hands as often or don't wash them as thoroughly as women.

I know the reasons women's toilets have queues going out the door and men's don't. You are not revealing new information to me.

Toilet facilities are not products of nature, they are designed. Most architects are men, and ladies toilet facilities are a bit of a blind spot. It's well-recognised in the profession. It's only recently been something that has been addressed. But most buildings (in other words most places where toilets are currently used) were designed when women's needs were not properly taken into account. I read that there wasn't even one ladies toilet within reasonable reach of the voting floor of the US House of Representatives until 2011.

Your comments are just embarrassing and appalling.

You've read so much into my comments that doesn't exist, I'm embarrassed for you.