Is that you, Bob?
MAJOR SPOILERS WARNING!
Black dog makin' you sweat. Black dog makin' you groove.
I was just watching the rumble in the jungle. Dude was the king of rope-a-dope.
@shatterdrose Not everything is a gendered issue. Just because someone draws a line and says that this particular problem doesn't reduce to sexism doesn't mean they support spousal abuse and sex trafficking (both of which are obviously gendered). Compare Emily's experience to this one: http://www.salon.com/2013/10/02/my_embarrassing_picture_went_viral/ Personally I would call the latter true internet abuse. Notice that by her own report most of the perpetrators were women. Equating these two concerns trivializes the issue. If Emily had said maybe women don't want to be STEM bloggers because in their country they are subject to genital mutilation, sexual slavery, or aren't educated then I would agree with her. Instead she ranted about her attractive white westerner problems.
It refers to the attitude of the speaker. If the speaker means to praise the subject along any dimension it is favorable attention. If instead the speaker intends cruelty toward the subject it would be decidedly unfavorable attention. Is this not an obvious difference to all of you? I don't think this is a gendered issue at all. I find it cruel to equate unwanted (if you prefer) sexual attention with the complete debasement accompanying internet abuse.
Why call it unwanted FAVORABLE attention if women find it demeaning. How is anything demeaning favorable? It seems to me being verbally demeaned could be or is a form of verbal abuse.
Do you have any female friends that rarely get catcalled? Ever spoken with them about the women who always complain about how men are always interested in sex? I know that women find it demeaning. I'm saying that's like being angry you ate too much steak and don't have enough room for dessert. Internet bullying can lead to suicide or severe depression. I find it sick that you (or she) would equate unwanted favorable attention with outright verbal abuse.
I'd suggest talking to as many of your female friends as possible and find out from them whether or not they enjoy being catcalled. You'd be surprised by A) how many of them actually find it demeaning and B) how many of them determine if it's demeaning by what the other person looks like (I won't even go into what this says about them.)
Also, @shatterdrose, who are all these overweight male news anchors?
I agree, I restricted my point to things that can easily be changed. That was intentional. Those were the sorts of comments she was complaining about (e.g. that she's being "intentionally unattractive"). Men would receive similar criticism. If straight up sinewy stud wore baggy assed stained hoodies to his weatherman job, or thick rimmed glasses and a pocket protector with suspenders then a handful of people would give him shit for it. I promise you. They would. A handful more will talk about how they don't give a fuck and want to jump on his magnetic pole. The rest will talk about how they hate "wintery mix." You seem to miss my point. I think it's demeaning to suggest that being sexualized is the problem, or even that it is gendered. Cat calls, come ons and so forth should be seen for what they are. Compliments. The problem is exactly what you said in the last paragraph. What you look like, and the value of what you say should be seen as completely orthogonal dimensions. Unfortunately, in this world they aren't. That's lame.
Men aren't judged by looks as much as women. And you're talking about clothing and things easily adjusted, such as shaving. Both of those are generally considered unkept, for good looking men or ugly men. Has nothing to do with physical merit. Plus, if you look at, for instance, TV Anchors, how many of those men are in super good shape? Especially sports announcers. How many overweight men do you see on tv, and how many over weight women? Save for Candy, of course. (Wasn't her name Candy? Cindy? Mandy? Andy? Damn I'm bad with names grrr) Point stands, women are held to a much higher standard for physical attractiveness than men in order to be considered "worthwhile" or "have anything relevant to say".
It happens to men all the time. That's part of talking in front of a camera. You get evaluated on appearance. If a guy got up there with a neck beard and schlubby clothes people will tell him to get himself together. That is if they don't tell him to eat shit and die first. Being called both beautiful and smart isn't bullying. The problem isn't sexism. It's lookism.
No, but when a male makes a blog about science, it's not littered with "wow, you're hot" the same way a female's is. That is sexism. When it's ok to do it towards one sex but not the other. Plus, if her video is about magnets, what does her being attractive have to do with it? (Yes, I know, I left that one wide open for puns, mostly because I find them so polarizing.) Also, it makes those who are not attractive (one of the points she also made) feel like they cannot join the STEM vlog's because they will be called ugly, fat etc. So yes, it is bullying.
Calling somebody attractive is internet bullying? Attractive people problems.
Also related is how they won their last game: http://videosift.com/video/Incredible-Unlikely-Catch-Wins-Game-with-30-Seconds-Left
Obviously. He should have made the tackle.
Nevertheless I think we can all agree to blame the kicker.
So you do have waivers, or at least arrangements about how to deal with young kids leaving schools. That's all that's going on here. To have any sort of arrangement for older kids would be strange. High schoolers often have their own car and can come and go as they please. Also: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/minister-every-school-can-have-a-police-officer-880315.html You do have cops at schools. It's a recent development here too, and not at all widespread. The only cops I was ever familiar with at schools were "DARE" officers who taught don't do drugs class. I never saw one enforce anything beyond giving a stern look at the occasional teenager. Common fucking sense states that this is a video on the internet because it is not the status quo. At all. Finally "people" didn't say it was right that he was arrested. One guy implied maybe we don't know the whole story. Then you flew off the handle. My understanding is that british schools ban kids from having best friends and teachers from using red ink. That's fucking weird, and I saw it on the internet, so it must be true.
The form isn't to let them go rock climbing, it's for them to walk home. And as I understand it it's an eight year old and a 14 year old. Here in the UK we use a different system. It's called common fucking sense. My mother is a secondary school teacher and my sister in law is a primary and nursery teacher. They both happened to come round my house tonight and I mentioned this video and asked them about exactly what happens in schools in the UK today, as I'm a little out of touch (it's a good few years since I was at school). They were both utterly confused by the video. Police in schools in the UK is a very rare thing, and they're only called in as a last resort. This situation would never have ended with police being called unless the guy was actually being a threat, which he clearly isn't. Any escalation would have been passed on to the senior members of staff who would deal with the situation. As for the waivers to let the kids walk home in the UK it's simple. At secondary school level, so 11 and up, once they're off the school site they're your responsibility. You can pick them up or let them walk or catch the bus or whatever, but the school won't check that for you. Younger kids there's an agreement with the school about who will pick them up, but it's not as formal as the forms in the video. But there is a key word on file so if someone comes to pick up the kid that the staff don't know they need to give the key word to be able to get the kid. But if a parent comes to take a kid out of school, even in the middle of a class, they can't stop them and they wouldn't call the police as a parent picking up their kid isn't a police matter. Police would only ever be involved if there was violence or the real threat of violence. The thought that the police could enforce school rules is bizarre. I don't know what else to say. I'm glad this isn't the case everywhere in America. There are a lot of differences between the UK and America which are nation wide though. I'm sorry I'm not an expert on your school system. From what you say though the police in schools thing is something that's not unusual in America, and I find that strange. I find the whole video fucked up, and even more so the fact that some people in this thread seem to think it was right for the guy to be arrested. That it's OK for the school to keep the kids from the parents. It's all just fucking weird.
Clearly you're off your meds.
@bmacs27: GOD I fucking hate when people use the word "CLEARLY!" CLEARLY this blah blah blah and CLEARLY...Stop it...makes you sound like a pretentious idiot. Look-All this ineffectual spit-poppin' on this thread: Guy goes to school to pick up his kids and is harassed by bullshit rules and bullshit police. SIMPLE THAT'S COMPLETE BULLSHIT-HE GOD FUCKED UNDESERVEDLY The incident is complete bullshit, and a symptom of the insanity of shit like homeland security that relentlessly inept citizenry (insert blog-bitcher here) have let complete agenda-oriented cabals of politicians and their keepers, hustle you for. Didn't Ben Fucking Franklin warn that anyone who sacrifices freedom for security deserve neither?? Ya buncha fucking idiots...
First of all, there is no "norm in America." It's a big fucking place, and schools are locally managed. I suppose waivers are relatively normal when children are expected to be in a risky situation without the supervision of their guardian. Suppose for example your kids were going to go on a rock climbing field trip. Would parents not be asked to consent to that? That's fucking weird. The weird part is that this waiver is clearly not related to the situation. These particular people at this particular school are clearly particularly stupid. That's why it's a video on the internet. It's not weird that they want 5 year olds' guardians to arrange for some sort of supervised transport home. I think it would be strange to just let a 5 year old walk miles down a highway to their home. The school would clearly have some liability if they allowed the child to do that without their guardian's permission. As for the cop, well, again, that's a locale to locale sort of thing. He might not be a permanent fixture at the school (although some schools have rent-a-cops). He may have been called in because the guy caused a ruckus off camera. Do you not have cops go to places where there is an incident? So, for example, if someone went to a school and refused to leave until his demands were met, would you not call in a cop to mediate the situation?
I think there's a lot more here that I find stupid than just the police officer and the arrest. The form signing? That hasn't been questioned by anyone else but I've never seen that here in the UK. That there's even an officer there? Again, that's just nuts. Everything about this situation is weird and alien to me as a brit, not just the arrest. From the reactions of others here it seems that all these things are normal, it's just a surprise that the guy got arrested. For me, everything is a surprise. What is the norm in America? I'm hoping that your kids can leave school and go home. That's what happens here. Are police routinely at schools like this? Is the liability waiving form signing normal too?
Not yet a member? No problem!Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?Recover it now.
A code has been sent to your email. Please submit it here:
Already signed up?Log in now.
Remember your password?Log in now.