I adore you.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.

For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.

Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

"That is not what Christianity is about, it's about love and peace and harmony or some such bullshit. It's totally not about oppressing, shunning and alienating people outside the circle."

Feminism needs to call itself something different to differentiate itself from all the assholes.
>> ^hpqp:

Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.
For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.
Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

Actually, those ads which depict men as lousy at childrearing and housework are just a subtler form of sexism (towards women, of course, but also men imo), but not misandry. The implied message is "housework and childrearing are the woman's job, only she's good at it", basically regurgitating the same crap from the 50s, but more perniciously.

There's this absolutely pathetic ad for Renault*, for example, which basically says "doing fatherly duties is emasculating, thankfully you've got our car to still be a man." (The slogan in French translates roughly to "so men can still be men", while the Spanish one says "fathers, but men", as if the two were contrary to eachother)

The reason why you won't see misandry in publicity is because, contrary to sexism, it is not an established cultural phenomenon, so advertisers know it will not reach a large audience.


*http://youtu.be/3Syyk7geHTY

In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
I do think there is a problem with misandry being accepted. I seldom watch TV, but especially in advertising, men in family-situations are often described as stupid or incapable, while there is a woman who rolls her eyes and does everything right. We don't see it the other way around anymore, and that's very good. But we should not see it either way imho. I try to look for an example.



Edit: Can't find anything at the moment, so consider it just my uninformed opinion :-)

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
No worries, assumed you did (btw, I was typing at the same time as you, so didn't see your comment until after posting mine : )

edit: the only reason why i didn't upvote your comment is because i don't agree about the "acceptance of misandry" bit. If i'm not mistaken this shining example received its fair share of criticism for being the spiteful crap that it is.

In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
Thanks. Him equating the hags with feminists completely fell under my radar. :-)

Edit: To clarify: I agree with all you said.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.

For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.

Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

I do think there is a problem with misandry being accepted. I seldom watch TV, but especially in advertising, men in family-situations are often described as stupid or incapable, while there is a woman who rolls her eyes and does everything right. We don't see it the other way around anymore, and that's very good. But we should not see it either way imho. I try to look for an example.



Edit: Can't find anything at the moment, so consider it just my uninformed opinion :-)

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
No worries, assumed you did (btw, I was typing at the same time as you, so didn't see your comment until after posting mine : )

edit: the only reason why i didn't upvote your comment is because i don't agree about the "acceptance of misandry" bit. If i'm not mistaken this shining example received its fair share of criticism for being the spiteful crap that it is.

In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
Thanks. Him equating the hags with feminists completely fell under my radar. :-)

Edit: To clarify: I agree with all you said.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.

For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.

Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

No worries, assumed you did (btw, I was typing at the same time as you, so didn't see your comment until after posting mine )

edit: the only reason why i didn't upvote your comment is because i don't agree about the "acceptance of misandry" bit. If i'm not mistaken this shining example received its fair share of criticism for being the spiteful crap that it is.

In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
Thanks. Him equating the hags with feminists completely fell under my radar. :-)

Edit: To clarify: I agree with all you said.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.

For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.

Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

Thanks. Him equating the hags with feminists completely fell under my radar. :-)

Edit: To clarify: I agree with all you said.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.

For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.

Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.

For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.

Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

>> ^gwiz665:

Establishment clause.
He is using his position in state to propagate religion in general, even if it is non-denominational. That is preferential treatment to religion compared to no religion.
He is welcome to do it privately, but he is not allowed to mix his state-job together with his religionism, because he muddies the water that separates church and state.


One--Texas isn't even really a state... Two--does he actually propagate or just ask for a gathering? Propagating would be specifically arguing for a religion of his choice or religion at all. You know, I have prayed in the past. Sometimes it was necessary for me. This, even though I am atheist. It was about the psychological effects (Although when I pray it is a rare thing indeed.)

I know there is no God and I don't pray to one. So if I would, for whatever reason, ask for a prayer day, even for spiritual things, I am not necessarily propagating anything more than a state of mind. That's spiritual to me. My wife breastfeeding was spiritual to me (The first two babies... the third, I was like 'Fuck it.')

Of course Rick Perry is sliding a disingenuous motive in there. But what the heck. He didn't, in this video, advocate for anything inappropriate.

Also, the first amendment is at odds with the establishment clause anyways... And even if it is not--are you suggesting that the literal interpretation should always be followed in the constitution like atheists are demanding are followed in the establishment clause? That's dangerous. "The right to bear arms" has no limitations whatsoever. You couldn't argue that times have changed because the law has not. And before we get into the term militia, I will explain it. Back then it meant, "all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service." Dictionary.reference.com

So yeah, let's err on the side of reason.

Establishment clause.

He is using his position in state to propagate religion in general, even if it is non-denominational. That is preferential treatment to religion compared to no religion.

He is welcome to do it privately, but he is not allowed to mix his state-job together with his religionism, because he muddies the water that separates church and state.

I know what you're saying, but I think someone needs to be done about the loyalty associated with individuals. It makes it much harder for non-aggressive "newbies" to make a dent in this community. That said, I really like 90% of the people on the sift... I think the main reason I think this way is that I find myself doing the same thing you have argued for and I'm not quite comfortable with it. Perhaps totally anonymous wouldn't be the way to go, but I do wish some sort of incentive were there to draw attention to those that don't get it because of their name.

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
Well sure, but I was talking about the unsifted queue, and I think the others were too. This is just about how some newly submitted videos get preferential treatment based on the poster.

I try to treat each video on its merits, but was describing a situation where that doesn't always happen.
In reply to this comment by Truckchase:
>> ^oritteropo:
If I have 5 minutes to watch a video or two, and can choose between one posted by someone who usually posts interesting stuff, or J. Random Sifter, which one am I going to choose?
Or, even worse, given a third choice of someone who usually (but perhaps not this time!) posts things I don't enjoy?
I'd argue that's what the voting & channel systems are for.

Well sure, but I was talking about the unsifted queue, and I think the others were too. This is just about how some newly submitted videos get preferential treatment based on the poster.

I try to treat each video on its merits, but was describing a situation where that doesn't always happen.
In reply to this comment by Truckchase:
>> ^oritteropo:
If I have 5 minutes to watch a video or two, and can choose between one posted by someone who usually posts interesting stuff, or J. Random Sifter, which one am I going to choose?
Or, even worse, given a third choice of someone who usually (but perhaps not this time!) posts things I don't enjoy?
I'd argue that's what the voting & channel systems are for.

Thank you! All in good fun.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
more comedy gold, goddammit!
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
All Asians should get preferential treatment and fully-paid scholarships...to driving schools!

more comedy gold, goddammit!
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
All Asians should get preferential treatment and fully-paid scholarships...to driving schools!

>> ^quantumushroo
m:

All Asians should get preferential treatment and fully-paid scholarships...to driving schools!



LOL! Racist.