Obviously she did not have an answer to the question. I wonder who the next police chief will be?
Somebody please tell Colpy to calm down.
He's on a free speech rampage again.
I don't know about that. I think discrimination against women probably still outweighs discrimination against men even today and there probably still is at least some work to be done at least in some areas.
To take just a few examples, adult women probably receive far more sexual harassment in public than men, are probably trafficked far more than men, etc.
That said, there are areas where discrimination has gone in reverse. Men are more likely to become homeless, commit suicide, die in workplace accidents, etc. Yet, when we talk about trafficking, we exclude male victims from the conversation just because they're the minority. In the case of childhood and adulthood sexual assault and domestic abuse (where studies show men and woman at almost parity), some deny that that a woman can even abuse and that a man can even become a victim. In the case of workplace accidents, homelessness, and workplace accidents, suddenly we don't talk about them as men's issues and instead talk about them as human rights issues.
So when it's an issue that mostly affects women, we say it's a women's issue. When it's an issue that affects both more or less equally, it's still a women's issue. And when it affects mostly men, it suddenly becomes a human rights issue. Too convenient. I agree that even when it affects mostly men, we should just call it a human rights issue and not a men's issue. After all, who with a heart would ignore the plight of a homeless or suicidal woman just because most homeless people are men? No one in his right mind would consider the gender statistics of homelessness or suicide to be in any way relevant. Same with workplace fatalities. It would be callous to dismiss the tragedy of a woman who dies on the job just because she represents a gender minority in that field. Again, we see it as a human rights issue and rightfully so. Some Men's Rights Advocates undermine themselves when they wrongly try to make these men's rights issues.
Unfortunately, feminists undermine their issues in the same way. For example, how is a male victim of abuse at the hands of a woman supposed to care about promoting more protection of victims of abuse when he's clearly excluded from the conversation (and is sometimes even portrayed as an abuser for being a man and his attacker as a victim for being a woman)? In fact, when a female victim of abuse at the hands of another woman is excluded (and sometimes quite explicitly and aggressively so as I've once seen), how is she supposed to care either? The moment we start to see trafficking and other female-dominated issues not just as a women's rights issue but as a human rights issue, more men will jump on board. But as long as men are demonized, then the focus turns to a battle of the sexes rather than on actually solving the problem.
In fact, we cannot deal with women's issues without addressing them as human rights issues to begin with. For example, studies have shown that most if not all abusers have been abused themselves. with that in mind, helping male victims of abuse by women would also help to reduce the rate of abuse of women by men. Why do we think so many men abuse women? If a woman abuses a boy and society dismisses him as a 'lucky boy' because she was sexy, then society is totally dismissing his trauma and confusing him. There you have a prime candidate for misogyny and a potential rapist of women in the same way that a woman who abuses boys had probably been abused by a man herself. To treat only the male abuse of women is like removing half of a tumour from the body of mankind while letting the other half grow back and then wondering in confusion why it keeps growing back.
when is a white man ever going to get an even break?SOmething you are against.
Not with our federal government. Being female gives you points in hiring. As does being a visible minority, disabled, speaking French. Being a white English speaking male regardless of merit puts you at the hiring list.
when is a white man ever going to get an even break?
Your spirited defense of free speech has been duly noted.
As has Colpy's.
I don't know about that. I think discrimination against women probably still outweighs discrimination against men even today and there probably still is at least some work to be done at least in some areas.
To take just a few examples, adult women probably receive far more sexual harassment in public than men, are probably trafficked far more than men, etc.
That said, there are areas where discrimination has gone in reverse. Men are more likely to become homeless, commit suicide, die in workplace accidents, etc. Yet, when we talk about trafficking, we exclude male victims from the conversation just because they're the minority. In the case of childhood and adulthood sexual assault and domestic abuse (where studies show men and woman at almost parity), some deny that that a woman can even abuse and that a man can even become a victim. In the case of workplace accidents, homelessness, and workplace accidents, suddenly we don't talk about them as men's issues and instead talk about them as human rights issues.
So when it's an issue that mostly affects women, we say it's a women's issue. When it's an issue that affects both more or less equally, it's still a women's issue. And when it affects mostly men, it suddenly becomes a human rights issue. Too convenient. I agree that even when it affects mostly men, we should just call it a human rights issue and not a men's issue. After all, who with a heart would ignore the plight of a homeless or suicidal woman just because most homeless people are men? No one in his right mind would consider the gender statistics of homelessness or suicide to be in any way relevant. Same with workplace fatalities. It would be callous to dismiss the tragedy of a woman who dies on the job just because she represents a gender minority in that field. Again, we see it as a human rights issue and rightfully so. Some Men's Rights Advocates undermine themselves when they wrongly try to make these men's rights issues.
Unfortunately, feminists undermine their issues in the same way. For example, how is a male victim of abuse at the hands of a woman supposed to care about promoting more protection of victims of abuse when he's clearly excluded from the conversation (and is sometimes even portrayed as an abuser for being a man and his attacker as a victim for being a woman)? In fact, when a female victim of abuse at the hands of another woman is excluded (and sometimes quite explicitly and aggressively so as I've once seen), how is she supposed to care either? The moment we start to see trafficking and other female-dominated issues not just as a women's rights issue but as a human rights issue, more men will jump on board. But as long as men are demonized, then the focus turns to a battle of the sexes rather than on actually solving the problem.
In fact, we cannot deal with women's issues without addressing them as human rights issues to begin with. For example, studies have shown that most if not all abusers have been abused themselves. with that in mind, helping male victims of abuse by women would also help to reduce the rate of abuse of women by men. Why do we think so many men abuse women? If a woman abuses a boy and society dismisses him as a 'lucky boy' because she was sexy, then society is totally dismissing his trauma and confusing him. There you have a prime candidate for misogyny and a potential rapist of women in the same way that a woman who abuses boys had probably been abused by a man herself. To treat only the male abuse of women is like removing half of a tumour from the body of mankind while letting the other half grow back and then wondering in confusion why it keeps growing back.
Yep, that's exactly, and perfectly accurately, what it means. Damn, you're on the ball.Does that mean I could have gone to university or become anything I wanted because I'm white?
And "smart."Maybe they need to insert the word, "rich."
I know a shitload of Indians that missed out on it.Because I know lots of white male folk who missed out on this obvious perk.
Mentalfloss,
See, now this is where you prove how completely inept you are?
What was that?
Okay here, read this first:
Definition
Inept
1. without skill or aptitude for a particular task or assignment; maladroit: He is inept at mechanical tasks. She is inept at dealing with people.
2. generally awkward or clumsy; haplessly incompetent.
3. inappropriate; unsuitable; out of place.
4. absurd or foolish: an inept remark.
Okay now, take 30 seconds to absorb it.
Okay, now look over here, Mentalfloss. The reason you are haplessly incompetent, is because your vocabulary is made of talking points or catch phrases. But I'm going to explain it to you in the simplest terms.
Nobody said she couldn't say it. THAT'S FREE SPEECH. But when you say stupid shit, you own it. That's the great thing about free speech. You own what you say.
Clearly this women exercised her free speech and said some really stupid shit. As a result she was suspended. But regarding her freedom to say it? That was never tread upon.
That's free speech.
What?
Okay, one more time.
Definition
Inept
1. without skill or aptitude for a particular task or assignment; maladroit: He is inept at mechanical tasks. She is inept at dealing with people.
2. generally awkward or clumsy; haplessly incompetent.
3. inappropriate; unsuitable; out of place.
4. absurd or foolish: an inept remark.
You don't believe in free speach, remember?
No one said you couldn't organize a Nazi rally, either.
But you and Colpy would defend the right to do so without consequence.
Or to put it in your sophisticated parlance - 'you don't own it.'
Yet a fairly innocuous comments like this one, and Colpy's three legged cat caught his tongue.
You guys aren't stewards of free speech.
You're both just phonies and this is clearly another example of that.
Where's your defense of free speech here?
No one said you couldn't organize a Nazi rally, either.
But you and Colpy would defend the right to do so without consequence.
Yep, that's about the extent of the response I expected from a neo-liberal progtard. Don't defend your actions and words, just attack the people who point out your gross hypocrisy and stupidity. Because that's about all the intellectual capacity you f*cking morons have.Stop being a triggered SJW.
Hoid doesn't have a problem with racially and gender charged terms. Wow, another f*cking hypocrite.white males question existence of white male privilege, they also want to know why black lives matter.