The women's march shows it's true colors

[Fentoine Lum]

Clearly you think feminism means listening to a man.

You also think that egalitarianism means listening to a man.

Egalitarianism means listening to both men and women. You apparently only want to listen to women? And you think that's fair society? Ok then....

Who is soiling themselves over a decade old "event" in another nation again?

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Clearly you think feminism means listening to a man.

You also think that egalitarianism means listening to a man.

Egalitarianism means listening to both men and women. You apparently only want to listen to women? And you think that's fair society? Ok then....

Obviously the fair thing is that women listen to men and change the name of their movement.

Although there are men in the feminist movement. As far as I can tell, they are not trying to change the name. So maybe women are listening to men? Just not to you.

Really, these things should be more organic, I think. If women want to change the name, I am sure they will.

His "objection" does seem to be all about him doesn't it.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Equality between the genders has no bearing on who should listen to whom. Equality would mean they get to chose to whom they listen.

So if men treat women as invisible and don't listen to what they have to say, that's what you consider equality between the genders? Ok...

Like you are in this thread?

Oh that's different.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Like you are in this thread?

I've had disagreements with both men and women in this thread. I don't form my opinions based on the gender of the other speaker. Nor have I insisted that "women change the name of their movement" as you keep declaring. Nor did I tell you what words you must use. That's your own bullshit trying to masquerade as something I wrote, when I never did any such thing, ever on this board. Not even once. Its a false accusation you've made repeatedly. Almost as if you believe it. But you're full of shit, Toni. And no, not because you are a woman. Because you are you.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Like you are in this thread?

I've had disagreements with both men and women in this thread. I don't form my opinions based on the gender of the other speaker. Nor have I insisted that "women change the name of their movement" as you keep declaring. Nor did I tell you what words you must use. That's your own bullshit trying to masquerade as something I wrote, when I never did any such thing, ever on this board. Not even once. Its a false accusation you've made repeatedly. Almost as if you believe it. But you're full of shit, Toni. And no, not because you are a woman. Because you are you.

So what are you soiling yourself over here?

 

[Metaphor]

You pretty much did.

You don't know what a double standard is.

1. On seats on public transport:

Not 'arguably' small. It's undeniably small. The height is also more suited to women than men.

2. Immediately after, on public toilets:

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.

Nature is to blame for women taking longer to urinate than men. Society did not make that happen. Allocating more resources to women (e.g. larger bathrooms with more stalls) will not make them take less time to urinate, though it will reduce the queue length if there is one. I did not say we should or shouldn't allocate more space--I said they were allocated equal space.

Quite apart from the obvious double standard, there's other things, such as it being incorrect that women already or currently have the same space as men and that the reason for the queues is that men can hold more urine and discharge it quicker, which is way less than a proper, full explanation. In other words, it's not just nature, and certainly not just inefficient urination.

The more efficient pissing is nature. The queue length is the interaction of nature and the space allocated. Allocating more space won't make the pissing more efficient.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

...

 

[ruby sparks]

You don't know what a double standard is.

1. On seats on public transport:





2. Immediately after, on public toilets:

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.

Nature is to blame for women taking longer to urinate than men. Society did not make that happen. Allocating more resources to women (e.g. larger bathrooms with more stalls) will not make them take less time to urinate, though it will reduce the queue length if there is one. I did not say we should or shouldn't allocate more space--I said they were allocated equal space.

Quite apart from the obvious double standard, there's other things, such as it being incorrect that women already or currently have the same space as men and that the reason for the queues is that men can hold more urine and discharge it quicker, which is way less than a proper, full explanation. In other words, it's not just nature, and certainly not just inefficient urination.

The more efficient pissing is nature. The queue length is the interaction of nature and the space allocated. Allocating more space won't make the pissing more efficient.

Look, I'm not going to repeat myself ad nauseam. You clearly took two different views regarding two very similar issues.

If women were more efficient at pissing than men, they wouldn't have toilet lines going out the door.

As I have said, that's irrelevant. One could equally say that if men had shorter legs or were smaller or something, they wouldn't have to manspread or take up as much room on the subway!

But you did not suggest giving more space to meet the needs, biological or whatever, of women, would be a solution (in fact you wrongly said that they already had as much or more space) which is in contrast to you saying that more space would ease the manspreading problem.

Allocating more space won't make the pissing more efficient.

No, but it would ease the queuing problem, just as more space would ease the manspreading problem! The biology of urinating is no more relevant or irrelevant than the biology of legs.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There is a very simple solution to this. Unisex bathrooms. Why are male and female bathrooms still a thing?

 

[Toni]

You don't know what a double standard is.

1. On seats on public transport:





2. Immediately after, on public toilets:

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.

Nature is to blame for women taking longer to urinate than men. Society did not make that happen. Allocating more resources to women (e.g. larger bathrooms with more stalls) will not make them take less time to urinate, though it will reduce the queue length if there is one. I did not say we should or shouldn't allocate more space--I said they were allocated equal space.

Quite apart from the obvious double standard, there's other things, such as it being incorrect that women already or currently have the same space as men and that the reason for the queues is that men can hold more urine and discharge it quicker, which is way less than a proper, full explanation. In other words, it's not just nature, and certainly not just inefficient urination.

The more efficient pissing is nature. The queue length is the interaction of nature and the space allocated. Allocating more space won't make the pissing more efficient.

I actually urinate much more quickly than my husband. I also can hold it longer. Same was true with my dad on fishing trips.

Women’s clothing takes longer to navigate as does cleaning up after. Plus women usually wash their hands. Either your claim is imprecise and incorrect: time to actually urinate is not gender specific or you are incorrect: social mores dictate the amount of time women require to use the bathroom for urination. Plus higher hygiene standards held by women.

 

[Metaphor]

As I have said, that's irrelevant. One could equally say that if men had shorter legs or were smaller or something, they wouldn't have to manspread or take up as much room on the subway!

That's self-evidently true though. If men were shorter--more like women--public transport would be more comfortable for them.

But you did not suggest giving more space to meet the needs, biological or whatever, of women, would be a solution (in fact you wrongly said that they already had as much or more space) which is in contrast to you saying that more space would ease the manspreading problem.

It's self evident that including more stalls for women will reduce queue length for women. What would be a dispute about that? Not mentioning it isn't "in contrast" to anything else because you can't contrast unuttered words.

In any case, in terms of public transport, it isn't just "more" space for men, it's about differently-designed space. It would be about seats that are higher off the ground than they are at the moment (which doesn't take up more "space") and seats with different seat pitches.

 

[Metaphor]

Clearly you think feminism means listening to a man.

You also think that egalitarianism means listening to a man.

Egalitarianism means listening to both men and women. You apparently only want to listen to women? And you think that's fair society? Ok then....

Who is soiling themselves over a decade old "event" in another nation again?

I think Fentoine meant this jab for me, though it doesn't surprise me that he can't distinguish between anyone he (she?) sees as the enemy.

 

[ruby sparks]

As I have said, that's irrelevant. One could equally say that if men had shorter legs or were smaller or something, they wouldn't have to manspread or take up as much room on the subway!

That's self-evidently true though. If men were shorter--more like women--public transport would be more comfortable for them.

But you did not suggest giving more space to meet the needs, biological or whatever, of women, would be a solution (in fact you wrongly said that they already had as much or more space) which is in contrast to you saying that more space would ease the manspreading problem.

It's self evident that including more stalls for women will reduce queue length for women. What would be a dispute about that? Not mentioning it isn't "in contrast" to anything else because you can't contrast unuttered words.

In any case, in terms of public transport, it isn't just "more" space for men, it's about differently-designed space. It would be about seats that are higher off the ground than they are at the moment (which doesn't take up more "space") and seats with different seat pitches.

I'm not going to repeat myself ad nauseam. It probably was no big thing. I'm not saying you're a sexist pig. You're not. But on the one hand you.....

Oh never mind.

 

[laughing dog]

Equality between the genders has no bearing on who should listen to whom. Equality would mean they get to chose to whom they listen.

So if men treat women as invisible and don't listen to what they have to say, that's what you consider equality between the genders? Ok...

Your idiotic straw man has nothing to do with equality between the genders.

 

[ruby sparks]

.. the vast majority of women (and men) don't call themselves feminists. That tells me pretty much the whole story.

But it does not say why, so I don't see how it tells us the whole story at all. It could as easily be the case as often as anything else that women do not want to be associated with traits that feminists are stereotypically associated with, sometimes unfairly. The BBC article you yourself linked to even said, "The majority said they did not want to call themselves feminist because they feared they would be associated with these traits." So it might not so much be feminism that's putting them off, as unnecessarily negative perceptions of feminism, and the fear of taking excessive flak from those stridently hostile to feminism and triggered by the mere mention of the word.

And it does not say anything at all about whether the majority of feminists are egalitarian, or progressive, or not. And your not-backed-up claim that they are mostly not egalitarian or progressive could be seen as possibly unfairly adding to the negative stereotyping I just mentioned.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If a thread about feminism goes on long enough, people will eventually get to the root issue which is the definition of feminism itself.

There is a disconnect between the dictionary definition and the real world definition. Choose which definition suits your politics and run with it. I choose the real definition.

 

[Toni]

Clearly you think feminism means listening to a man.

You also think that egalitarianism means listening to a man.

Egalitarianism means listening to both men and women. You apparently only want to listen to women? And you think that's fair society? Ok then....

Sure Jan.

I think that at this point in time, feminists have very good reasons to continue to call themselves feminists and to choose the leaders they choose and the ideas and ideals they espouse.

I'm not gendering the leadership nor the ideals.

 

[Rhea]

I actually urinate much more quickly than my husband. I also can hold it longer. Same was true with my dad on fishing trips.

Women’s clothing takes longer to navigate as does cleaning up after. Plus women usually wash their hands. Either your claim is imprecise and incorrect: time to actually urinate is not gender specific or you are incorrect: social mores dictate the amount of time women require to use the bathroom for urination. Plus higher hygiene standards held by women.

This is a good point and precisely accurate. Biology does not make the difference. If we all ran around naked, it would take me no more time than my husband to urinate. What makes the difference is social customs.

 

[Rhea]

As I have said, that's irrelevant. One could equally say that if men had shorter legs or were smaller or something, they wouldn't have to manspread or take up as much room on the subway!

That's self-evidently true though. If men were shorter--more like women--public transport would be more comfortable for them.

You assume that public transport seats are more comfortabnle for women than men. On what do you base this? Do you know how uncomfortable it is to sit in chairs where your knee joints are made to dangle because your feet do not tough the ground? It is extremely uncomfortable and, on long rides like airplanes, it is painful.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Clearly you think feminism means listening to a man.

You also think that egalitarianism means listening to a man.

Egalitarianism means listening to both men and women. You apparently only want to listen to women? And you think that's fair society? Ok then....

Sure Jan.

I think that at this point in time, feminists have very good reasons to continue to call themselves feminists and to choose the leaders they choose and the ideas and ideals they espouse.

I'm not gendering the leadership nor the ideals.

So despite having written with contempt about women and feminists listening to men, you are actually fine with women and feminists listening to anyone of any gender.

I am impressed and proud of you. Good stuff.