The women's march shows it's true colors

[ruby sparks]

No, the question DOES have an embedded accusation as the default.

Of course it doesn't. 'Is your distaste for manspreading vengeance, then?' Lol. Totally innocent question.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No, the question DOES have an embedded accusation as the default.

Of course it doesn't. 'Is your distaste for manspreading vengeance, then?' Lol. Totally innocent question.

It's a question when it can be answered no and not insisted that it's yes. Unlike when you proclaim hidden agendas about people you have decided you don't like and refuse to take people for what they actually write.

 

[Toni]

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.

Infinity would never provide enough chances for Jolly.

 

[Toni]

No, the question DOES have an embedded accusation as the default.

Of course it doesn't. 'Is your distaste for manspreading vengeance, then?' Lol. Totally innocent question.

It's a question when it can be answered no and not insisted that it's yes. Unlike when you proclaim hidden agendas about people you have decided you don't like and refuse to take people for what they actually write.

Sure babe.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

WTF? Did I say women's concerns are not valid? No. I said that this organization decided to prop up Linda Sarsour. And they did. That's a fact. That others showed up not knowing this isn't relevant to what I wrote.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Sure babe.

Ok sweetums.

 

[ruby sparks]

It's a question when it can be answered no and not insisted that it's yes.

Seriously. Do you have a mental age of 10, or what?

Nothing wrong with that, obviously. I see your point now.

And by the way, if someone says they believe something (about another poster) to be the case, that's not insisting, nor is it telling the other person what to think. Or are you completely stupid? Also, do you enjoy doing anything else other than going on the internet and whinging about being annoyed by Feminists? Are you trying to get back at women because you hate them? In other words, is it vengeance that informs your views? All perfectly legitimate questions, apparently. I'm so glad you enlightened me.

 

[Metaphor]

It's a question when it can be answered no and not insisted that it's yes.

Seriously. Do you have a mental age of 10, or what?

Nothing wrong with that, obviously. I see your point now.

And by the way, if someone says they believe something (about another poster) to be the case, that's not insisting, nor is it telling the other person what to think. Or are you completely stupid? Also, do you enjoy doing anything else other than going on the internet and whinging about being annoyed by Feminists? Are you trying to get back at women because you hate them? In other words, is it vengeance that informs your views? All perfectly legitimate questions, apparently. I'm so glad you enlightened me.

If someone answered your questions with "no, I don't hate women and this isn't vengeance", would you then accept that answer and not ask the same question again?

Or, perhaps it's better not to ask questions and simply make snide asides, like "show me on the doll where the feminist hurt you".

 

[laughing dog]

It's a question when it can be answered no and not insisted that it's yes.

Seriously. Do you have a mental age of 10, or what?

Nothing wrong with that, obviously. I see your point now.

And by the way, if someone says they believe something (about another poster) to be the case, that's not insisting, nor is it telling the other person what to think. Or are you completely stupid? Also, do you enjoy doing anything else other than going on the internet and whinging about being annoyed by Feminists? Are you trying to get back at women because you hate them? In other words, is it vengeance that informs your views? All perfectly legitimate questions, apparently. I'm so glad you enlightened me.

If someone answered your questions with "no, I don't hate women and this isn't vengeance", would you then accept that answer and not ask the same question again?

Or, perhaps it's better not to ask questions and simply make snide asides, like "show me on the doll where the feminist hurt you".

Which course of action would depend on one’s goals and whether the respondent was likely to over react and shine about it.

 

[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.

Take a look at this one. He claims intent on my part. While I did not change any meaning at all and he is mistaken, he made a factual claim about what was going on in my head, insulting me. I'm not a snowflake and so I can just shrug it off, but I do want to note it is exactly the same thing he accuses ruby of. It is therefore a hypocritical argument.

I'm actually not even judgmental about it. I think it's regular behavior when people get emotional. I try to educate people, though, including educating posters when they derail the derail that they derailed or when they contradict themselves.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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 don't see the point of the whole glove bit anyway. However, what he said is that he's seen places with only S & M. Not that those are the only sizes in use.

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

I have seen multiple people on here asking for things like subsidized childcare.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The thing is their determination to pick antisemites says that it's a strong part of their motivation.

 

[Toni]

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.

To be fair, this seems to be the case with whomever he disagrees.

 

[Toni]

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 don't see the point of the whole glove bit anyway. However, what he said is that he's seen places with only S & M. Not that those are the only sizes in use.

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

I have seen multiple people on here asking for things like subsidized childcare.

I think the glove thing was weird too, but whatever. His implication was that this was an indication of how much women are favored. It's actually an indication of what size glove people in that work area need and prefer.

Yes, affordable childcare is a really important part of modern society. Many people recognize that. Child care generally is much more expensive for infants and gets less expensive as the children get older. For infants, it can be cost prohibitive, even for well to do young families. This is one reason that it is actually less expensive for society to have much better and much longer parental leaves. It reduces child care costs and stress from the employees, making them more productive when they return to work. Children thrive best when raised by parents who are not stressed by an excess of extraneous stresses and time pressures--and financial pressures. Children who thrive in their earliest years on average are less expensive to educate as they need fewer special interventions.

Plus, I think it is the right thing for society to do: to build and run society so that the very smallest and those in most need due to health, age, whatever, are able to have their needs adequately met. So, yes, we need to make workplaces much more flexible to enable people to care for children, for ill and injured loved ones and for aging family members.

 

[Toni]

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

Constitution is still valid.

WTF? Did I say women's concerns are not valid? No. I said that this organization decided to prop up Linda Sarsour. And they did. That's a fact. That others showed up not knowing this isn't relevant to what I wrote.

I'm sorry. I thought that you were familiar with some very basic US history. My apologies.

Our Founding Fathers were imperfect white men who were striving to form a new nation. They were quite imperfect even by the day's standards. Today, when we consider their ownership of slaves and other imperfections, we are aghast. And yet, despite these significant moral failings, they were able to draft documents that form the basis of our nation.

You don't have to be perfect in order to contribute, and even contribute wonderfully well.

 

[Metaphor]

I think the glove thing was weird too, but whatever. His implication was that this was an indication of how much women are favored. It's actually an indication of what size glove people in that work area need and prefer.

"The glove thing" was to counter the absurd idea that spaces are built by men and ignore women's needs. If anything, designers seem to be hopeless at catering to human beings that are not from the 1950s.

 

[Toni]

I think the glove thing was weird too, but whatever. His implication was that this was an indication of how much women are favored. It's actually an indication of what size glove people in that work area need and prefer.

"The glove thing" was to counter the absurd idea that spaces are built by men and ignore women's needs. If anything, designers seem to be hopeless at catering to human beings that are not from the 1950s.

So the absolute fact that most medical research as well as many other aspects of our society are designed with white male as standard. You chose a poor example for your attempt to prove that everything revolves around women.

I do take your point that many products do not take into consideration the fact that people come in many shapes and sizes and require adequate clothing, transportation, furniture design and other considerations, not merely the average height and BMI of 22.7.

 

[Rhea]

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

Constitution is still valid.

WTF? Did I say women's concerns are not valid? No. I said that this organization decided to prop up Linda Sarsour. And they did. That's a fact. That others showed up not knowing this isn't relevant to what I wrote.

How many fucking times do you need to be corrected that the women’s march was not “an organization”?
Why can’t you get this through your brain? It was a groundswell of individual people converging o our nation’s capital, with sister marches occuring in cities and towns all over the planet. A few people who secured permits and porta-johns in DC ***AFTER*** the groundswell was already a tsumani do not speak for “The Women’s March”

And you’ve been told that innumerable times.
But you keep repeating bullshit in order to assert that women have no agency and to paint us all with the brush you think is insulting and in order to minimize and poison the entire effort.

Your claim is bullshit whiney grasping petulance every time you utter it.

No number of repeated whines will make the women’s march about “the organizers” or about Linda Sarsour.
You’re just spouting petulant bullshit hoping to bully.

 

[Metaphor]

So the absolute fact that most medical research as well as many other aspects of our society are designed with white male as standard. You chose a poor example for your attempt to prove that everything revolves around women.

It beggars belief that you'd bring up medical research. Tell me, which do you think is higher: the amount of research money that goes specifically to men's health or the amount of research money that goes specifically to women's health?

Women's health gets more than four times the funding of men's health:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/h...g/news-story/6bfc4ea7da62ad84743d7451de6de960

But, feminists tell me that sex and gender are illusions so I shouldn't be fussing, I guess.

 

[Toni]

So the absolute fact that most medical research as well as many other aspects of our society are designed with white male as standard. You chose a poor example for your attempt to prove that everything revolves around women.

It beggars belief that you'd bring up medical research. Tell me, which do you think is higher: the amount of research money that goes specifically to men's health or the amount of research money that goes specifically to women's health?

Women's health gets more than four times the funding of men's health:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/h...g/news-story/6bfc4ea7da62ad84743d7451de6de960

But, feminists tell me that sex and gender are illusions so I shouldn't be fussing, I guess.

I'm so sorry that you are under the misapprehension that medical research and spending started this decade.

Please try to keep up and try to read a bit of history.

More is being funneled into research of women's health issues because historically (as in: up until very recently) there was scarce research done concerning women's health problems. There's a lot of catching up to do. And not to put too fine a point on it: a lot of profit to make.
Here's a link that provides some information that might inform you better:

https://www.jognn.org/article/S0884-2175(15)33790-4/fulltext

I am not certain if you are aware, but most of what we know about medicine was discovered before 1990. But totally, I get it: The world began when you were born. History and science and culture and politics and sociology all began the instant you noticed them and decided to take notice. I keep forgetting.