midnight city wrote: » So men are not to explain anything (mansplaining) to a woman or to interrupt (manterrupt) a woman now. Wasn't that exactly what women faced about 100 years ago. Now they want to put men in the same position. Its all very misandrist. Where is this going.
silverharp wrote: » thankfully its restricted to the ivory safespace of a gender studies department, when these cookies get their first minimum wage job there will be plenty of mansplaining and manterrupting :pac:
Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: » :D:D In all fairness any company (outside of some sot of feminist org) would be mad to hire someone with a gender studies or equivalent qualification. I would imagine you would spend your time being preached to and being terrified of leaving yourself open to any possible litigation or accusations, walking on eggshells. It wouldn't make for a good environment.
Connacht2KXX wrote: » irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/lord-protect-me-from-easily-offended-snowflake-girls-1.2822570 At least the IT is putting up some bit of a pushback. The comments on their facebook page were both hilarious yet depressing...
LostinBlanch wrote: » I know we covered women using misogynistic language previously, but here's an article about a new study which shows that they are more likely to use misogynistic language on twitter. The article also references British police plans to lump in misogyny as a hate crime. So if that does occur then it's more likely that women who tweet offensively will be charged, no? :rolleyes: I wouldn't hold my breath though.
LostinBlanch wrote: » I know we covered women using misogynistic language previously, but here's an article about a new study which shows that they are more likely to use misogynistic language on twitter.
LostinBlanch wrote: » but here's an article about a new study which shows that they are more likely to use misogynistic language on twitter.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Then I went to secondary school. Mixed secondary school, and boy was I (and everyone else I went to school with) in for a surprise. The first week or so everyone was on their best behaviour, but shortly after that (and for the next five years) I sat in class, often next to, girls from hell!!! They would lie about each other, cause fights, spit at one another, pull each others hair, call each other sluts, fart, belch, stink, talk about boyband members, what they wanted to do to 'em, what they let them do to them... and my school was a decent respectable community college
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Even after I left school and for the next twenty years now, 90% of the time it was other women that I heard shaming women for their overtly sexual behavior or whatever. I think, by and large, men are much more easy going, to the point of not giving a fcuk, about what women (not in their field of vision at least) are getting up to. So yeah, no surprise on that finding for me anyway.
NI24 wrote: » The problem with that study is that a good number of twitter users are men parading as women. A better study would be a place like boards where a posting history is more revealing. Also, they included words like bitch even when that word has lost a lot of its meaning. Was this respectable community college a barnyard? Because I went to "mixed" schools my whole life (single sex schools are so rare in my hometown area we just called them schools) and none of the girls ever behaved this way. Some of the boys did, but even then what you mentioned would be extreme behavior. I mean, farting? That's just pig behavior and I doubt even a group of young men think farting in public is funny. If you'd like I could dig up an after hours thread where a woman wrote into an Irish newspaper asking for advice after cheating on her partner and finding herself pregnant by the other man. The men in there gave a lot of "fcuks" and words like slut and whore were definitely in the conversation. This was a woman they didn't even know-- in fact, the woman didn't exist and it was a made up scenario to get gullible morons into a frenzy over paternity fraud. So yeah, I'd say men definitely care what women are up to and you don't notice it because of a whoppin' case of confirmation bias and willful ignorance.
NI24 wrote: » If you'd like I could dig up an after hours thread where a woman wrote into an Irish newspaper asking for advice after cheating on her partner and finding herself pregnant by the other man. The men in there gave a lot of "fcuks" and words like slut and whore were definitely in the conversation. This was a woman they didn't even know-- in fact, the woman didn't exist and it was a made up scenario to get gullible morons into a frenzy over paternity fraud. So yeah, I'd say men definitely care what women are up to and you don't notice it because of a whoppin' case of confirmation bias and willful ignorance.
silverharp wrote: » I'd imagine on average that women "police" other women's behaviour more than men do , the above situation real or not is a more unusual example where a woman's behaviour would directly affect a man, and anything to do with pregnancy deception is going to peek interest just a tad.
Eric Cartman wrote: » man/woman/child , no matter who's saying it, any nasty words are perfectly above board for anyone thinking of committing paternity fraud. Its a damaging form of deception that could very well end two lives if it was revealed.
JRant wrote: » Well I must say that is some world class mental gymnastics right there. So a study is released finding that more women than men abuse other women online and your response is that they are actually men pretending to be women. You really couldn't make up this stuff
NI24 wrote: » You haven't been on twitter much have you? A huge portion are novelty accounts and yeah, without any hesitation I can say that almost all those novelty accounts are men, well actually teenage boys and they are trolling. And I guess you missed the part about including the word bitch huh? Big difference between calling a woman a bitch and saying I'm going out with my bitches tonight yet the latter gets counted as misogynistic language. It was an (admittedly) weak study.
Eric Cartman wrote: » How can you prove that ? bit of a sweeping generalisation.
NI24 wrote: » Outlaw Pete made a ridiculous statement about how 90% of comments regarding women's overtly sexual behavior came from other women. Of all the things to claim, the idea that men only contribute 10% of the running social commentary of women's sexual behavior is such a falsehood it's laughable. In fact, it's one of the few things where men contribute just as much if not more than women.
NI24 wrote: » And yet, no names for married men who impregnate women. And no, bastard doesn't count. I'm talking names specifically geared towards a man's sexual behavior.
JRant wrote: » What would the other "few" things that men contribute be?
JRant wrote: » How about Daddy, Dad, Da or the old fashioned father? They're all words used.
NI24 wrote: » Clearly I meant women who aren't their wives. But if that's the best you can do, then you really don't have an argument.
JRant wrote: » Well clearly I can't read your mind. Say what you mean. What exactly has a married man having a child with someone else got to do with paternity fraud?
NI24 wrote: » then I can't help you.
