The women's march shows it's true colors

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I grew up being told to keep my knees together so I don’t think you actually know what you’re talking about.

So is this a vengeance thing then?

No, I think that some of the responders don't actually know what they are talking about. I think it is an ignorance thing.

I have definitely seen parents telling this to their daughters to educate them on social conventions.

Lady Sitting Etiquette

 

[Toni]

How does that rebut anything? You don't know the genders of everyone that uses that work area. Note, also, that medical gloves that are a size big are no big deal.



The problem is not with asserting rights. The problem is with expecting more than equality. (For example, expecting there to be no consequence for childbearing.)

Ask Metaphor. He’s the one who said there were only size S and M gloves? So the world revolves around women, apparently. Yes it’s daft but.....

I think most women would be happy to have exactly the same career consequences of having children that men have.

So, you think most mothers want to increase the hours they spend at work after giving birth, the way that most new fathers spend more hours at work after the birth of their child?

In Australia, when men ask for flexible work, they are twice as likely to be turned down as women are.

Curiously (or perhaps not), the feminist who wrote an article that included this fact concluded that 'men suck at asking for flexible work'. Of course, when women are more likely to get a negative reaction when asking for a raise compared to men, it isn't women who suck at asking for a raise. It's the patriarchy keeping women down.

I think that most women would be happy to get the bump in pay and promotions that men experience upon announcing that they are going to become a parent or a parent again, yes.

I think that both parents should be given adequate parental leave--by which I mean a very bare minimum of 3 months at full pay/benefits but in reality, closer to a year. For a long time, I thought women should get more parental leave because of the medical components to the rigors of pregnancy and childbirth that they experience and that men do not. However, a point was made that when fathers take time off after the birth of a child, it also benefits the mother as it gives her an extra hand (and eyes and ears and driver, etc.) for the duration of the father's leave.

There is too much pressure on people to return to work after an illness or an injury or a new family member is added. This pressure has negative physical consequences that go along with a much greater increase in stress, including elevated blood pressure, elevated increased risk for obesity, elevated increase for all related illnesses and conditions. Society, the employers and certainly the parents and children would benefit from more family friendly policies.

 

[ZiprHead]

I've been banned before for "goading" you Mr. Snowflake, when you said something "orwellian". That was too much for these mods to tolerate.

No, you weren't. Stop misrepresenting to others the reason why you received an infraction.

 

[ruby sparks]

Sure luv

That's a pathetic response.

Sure luv

What does puzzle me, beyond the actual double standard, is why someone would apply it. Why suggest that something could be designed to assist one gender in one situation but not the other gender in a similar situation?

I'm not going to suggest it's sexism on your part. I believe it's more a personal response of yours to perceived sexism against or disadvantage to men, as part of your worldview, the one in which we are in the grip of feminist delusions. Which by any reasonable standard is an exaggeration at the very least.

 

[ruby sparks]

No, I think that some of the responders don't actually know what they are talking about. I think it is an ignorance thing.

I have definitely seen parents telling this to their daughters to educate them on social conventions.

Lady Sitting Etiquette

Ok seeing as how the OP issue of anti-semitism in The Women's March movement has not been actively pursued....and no one has started a thread on manspreading...

I think it is relatively non-controversial to say that certain body postures signal either (a) dominance, (b) status or (c) social ease/entitlement and that there are and have been more social pressures on women not to adopt them than men. Manspreading is one for which it is very likely that in some cases, one or more of these is in play. By the same token, other reasons can be in play instead or as well. As such, we shouldn't, imo, say either (i) that manspreading is or is necessarily about those things or (ii) that women, especially nowadays in the 'west' are as restricted as they once were or that there are not also ways in which women express similar things.

There was a time, perhaps not even that long ago, when 'Lady Sitting Etiquette' had a stronger social influence. Thankfully this has waned significantly, even if such things still persist to a lesser degree.

It also isn't necessarily sexist. Male displays can be 'aimed' at other men and female displays at other women.

 

[ruby sparks]

Another (related) example of something which was once expected but is much less so now is a man giving up a seat to a woman. Not an elderly woman or a pregnant woman but just a woman.

Which situation could be (or could have been) described in general terms as both a female privilege and benevolent sexism, possible simultaneously. Which may in some instances result in some men in certain situations facing a quandary.

I think any reasonable analysis would include for both, and probably some others, including evolution and biology.

 

[ruby sparks]

Or....back on topic.

There is clearly much more to the Women's March Movement than the issues around Israel and Palestine that some of it's leaders have been guilty, imo, of having unnecessarily and unhelpfully brought into the equation. I don't think they have expressly brought them into the movement themselves, but nonetheless. It hasn't, as I understand it, helped the expressed core cause(s) of the movement, including by alienating some of the reportedly 7 million (mostly female) members, most of whom do not 'walk like the duck' in question. I do not know how or why it came about, but it is/was not good, imo.

I do think the accusations of antisemitism are overblown. That said, I would not be surprised if there was perhaps an element of it. At the very least, when someone apparently compares jews to termites, the leaders of a women's movement should imo have done a lot more to distance themselves from that person and their views. By the same token, it would not surprise me if the controversy had been opportunistically used by some to discredit a movement that they would not support in any case.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I've been banned before for "goading" you Mr. Snowflake, when you said something "orwellian". That was too much for these mods to tolerate.

No, you weren't. Stop misrepresenting to others the reason why you received an infraction.

Yes I was. LD wrote something Orwellian. I called it that. I was given an infraction for "goading". That's exactly what the notification said. Don't lie to the people. And when banned or given infractions, they do it through an anonymous account so the cowards can't be identified.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Sure luv

What does puzzle me, beyond the actual double standard, is why someone would apply it. Why suggest that something could be designed to assist one gender in one situation but not the other gender in a similar situation?

I'm not going to suggest it's sexism on your part. I believe it's more a personal response of yours to perceived sexism against or disadvantage to men, as part of your worldview, the one in which we are in the grip of feminist delusions. Which by any reasonable standard is an exaggeration at the very least.

You may want to try reading what people write without your filter against said people. You may be surprised when you realize they don't mean the secret meanings and agendas you so often project onto them and accuse them of. This is a good start.

 

[ZiprHead]

I've been banned before for "goading" you Mr. Snowflake, when you said something "orwellian". That was too much for these mods to tolerate.

No, you weren't. Stop misrepresenting to others the reason why you received an infraction.

Yes I was. LD wrote something Orwellian. I called it that. I was given an infraction for "goading". That's exactly what the notification said. Don't lie to the people. And when banned or given infractions, they do it through an anonymous account so the cowards can't be identified.

No you didn't. You changed his username to orwell, That is strictly against the rules. You are the one that is lying.

This discussion is closed. This is not the proper place for it. If you want to continue it, you know where to go.

 

[ruby sparks]

You may want to try reading what people write without your filter against said people. You may be surprised when you realize they don't mean the secret meanings and agendas you so often project onto them and accuse them of. This is a good start.

Given what he has explicitly said on several occasions, I don't think it's an unreasonable guess. But if you're going to repeatedly whinge, as you do, about me sometimes saying in my posts what I personally think, you yourself could at least stop guessing what I may want, in yours.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Sure luv

What does puzzle me, beyond the actual double standard, is why someone would apply it. Why suggest that something could be designed to assist one gender in one situation but not the other gender in a similar situation?

I'm not going to suggest it's sexism on your part. I believe it's more a personal response of yours to perceived sexism against or disadvantage to men, as part of your worldview, the one in which we are in the grip of feminist delusions. Which by any reasonable standard is an exaggeration at the very least.

You may want to try reading what people write without your filter against said people. You may be surprised when you realize they don't mean the secret meanings and agendas you so often project onto them and accuse them of. This is a good start.

You mean like this?

I grew up being told to keep my knees together so I don’t think you actually know what you’re talking about.

So is this a vengeance thing then?

ANYHOO, ...

in regard to the biological need for MANSPREADING...

It is clear that it is a biological need because every long-distance marathon is won by women, while men are busy coming in last place due to all the running around bow-legged.

Q.E.D.

 

[ruby sparks]

It is clear that it is a biological need because every long-distance marathon is won by women, while men are busy coming in last place due to all the running around bow-legged.

If they can't even keep up with the 'girls' running alongside the race in bikinis and high heels then that's a serious problem.

 

[Rhea]

It is not necessary to protest everything bad in order to protest or speak out against one particular thing.

This is certainly true, but we're talking about a "women's march" that at one point championed Linda Sarsour.

How many fucking times do you need to have your false claim corrected? The Women’s March did not champion Linda Sarsour. Likely 99% of us who were there had no idea who she was, or half the other women on the stage that we could not see or hear and weren’t there for anyway.

Stop intentionally misrepresenting the women’s march to score your stupid whiney points.

The women’s march waa not about the speakers or the stage. It was about US, making room in the conversation for justice and equality.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You mean like this?

Indeed. Note the use of a question (with no imbedded accusation) instead of an accusation or judgment. Imagine if Ruby did that instead of telling people what they "really think", or dishonestly editing quotes to try to portray them as saying the opposite not what they said as you did above.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The Women’s March did not champion Linda Sarsour.

The founders and organizers of it did.

 

[Toni]

The Women’s March did not champion Linda Sarsour.

The founders and organizers of it did.

And George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had slaves. Everybody knew that at the time.

Constitution is still valid.

 

[laughing dog]

It is not necessary to protest everything bad in order to protest or speak out against one particular thing.

This is certainly true, but we're talking about a "women's march" that at one point championed Linda Sarsour.

How many fucking times do you need to have your false claim corrected? The Women’s March did not champion Linda Sarsour. Likely 99% of us who were there had no idea who she was, or half the other women on the stage that we could not see or hear and weren’t there for anyway.

Stop intentionally misrepresenting the women’s march to score your stupid whiney points.

The women’s march waa not about the speakers or the stage. It was about US, making room in the conversation for justice and equality.

JP’s persistent message sent (unintentionally or not) is that women are not capable of either knowing or assessing what they are or ought to be doing.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Whether or not a few of the Women's March organizers are somewhat unsavory will not matter to the many women who will be marching.
If anybody wants to discount their efforts because of a few leaders who are not exactly angels, more fool you. Of course there will be right wingers eager to seize on this to try to denigrate the women marchers. The only good response here is "Why aren't you all organizing women's rights marches and efforts?".

https://heavy.com/news/2019/01/womens-march-2020/

...
It seems likely that the Women’s March organization will have another anniversary event in January 2020, but the organization hasn’t announced anything specific yet. There was a lot of controversy before this year’s event, so it’s also possible that things might change a bit by the time January 2020 arrives. Throughout this past year, the Women’s March had numerous actionable events to encourage people to vote.
...

Stay tuned!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You mean like this?

Indeed. Note the use of a question (with no imbedded accusation) instead of an accusation or judgment. Imagine if Ruby did that instead of telling people what they "really think", or dishonestly editing quotes to try to portray them as saying the opposite not what they said as you did above.

No, the question DOES have an embedded accusation as the default. It's impolite. As far as explicit accusations, you, Derec and fedupatheist were all known for that.