Because I respect women enough to know that their power is not the result of being a victim.

You poor man you, maybe you should join a christian support group for the discriminated. Or better, tell someone at FoxNews about the injustice you have to suffer.
Quick, name all jobs where women get paid more than men and then start naming all (yes, all of them) where men get paid more.
The only ones where women make more I can name involve sex. They do because men (like me) are pigs and, unlike women, are willing to spend huge amounts of money on it. That's why models get a lot of cash, men like to look at their well formed, half or more naked bodies.
And before I forget...
Never bed a man who won't bed self-respecting women - he's weak.

Um no. We respect women too much. Like the bible says, "Spare the rod, spoil the woman." We let them decide things and in turn they make us into little credit cards to be disposed of....sad...

But the solution is clear. Either get rid of our ape-like concepts of manhood or crush the fuck out of this respect-for-women-and-children-and-others bullshit.

I love and respect women by eating lots of pineapple.

>> ^bareboards2:

I love that she was unapologetic. Good on her.

I find it pretty pathetic that their dance team is doing actions of fucking a woman while smacking her ass and thinking that it's appropriate... let alone the little kid already doing those motions.

And people wonder why so many guys don't respect women properly, and so many women don't respect themselves enough

I had a giant rant typed out, but then I deleted it because, you know what, it wouldn't change anything. Instead, let's lawyer this shizzle with another giant rant:

We have no idea what is going on here. You can object on the grounds that you find the humor crass, or the fact that there is a video about it crass, or just because you did not find it funny. That I have no issue with.

But to have an extensive argument based on zero knowledge about the actual situation, especially because you are assigning horrible (or wonderful, I suppose) personality types to people you don't and will never know, makes no sense. If I came on here, read these comments, and started saying that person X was a shut-in who had never touched a woman, lived in his mom's basement and had no idea about how the world really worked, person Y was a sexist twat who didn't respect women and thought hitting them was okay, and person Z was a sexist twat who thought women were made of china and couldn't take rough-housing with a man because they are weaker and feebler, the only thing I would prove is that I was an opinionated moron. And all of you would hopefully (and rightfully) ignore me because you'd realize I actually know nothing about you.

Some girls like it rough. Some guys are macho idiots who disrespect women. These things are true. What's going on here, however, is UNCLEAR.

"First of all, it's not special status that they are seeking; it's equal status. This will fit in nicely with the whole "I just don't see homosexuals are being seperate or different than anyone else, because they're not" thing."

They already have equal status. When they seek to separate themselves from everyone else by their lifestyle choices, they don't deserve special recognition. If you're going to do that, then you are going to reap consequences. This is a society that even wants to empower kids to be gay, and it's sad what happens to them. They don't know what is happening to them, or why. They're taught this is normal. Well, that much is right. Among humans sinning is very normal.

"Second, the rules that you are referring to come from the old testament. All of the stupid rules of the old testament, like cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin, were kind of like, you know, made fun of by this dude that began preaching around 30 C.E. He had some craaaaaazy ideas like loving your enemy, helping the poor, serving others, respecting women, paying taxes, and just generally being kind to every one even if they are mean to you. He also enjoyed just chilling with sinners. It was like, his favourite thing to do. His ideas were so radical that he was executed (to death) by close minded, selfish people, that thought that it was better to oppress people than treat them nice. "That Jesus dude will cause an uprising against us! Let's kill him!"

I find it incredibly ironic that it is the atheists that I know who actually live humble and caring lives that are closer to Jesus' teachings than the so called Christians who are only selfish beings, interested in what Jesus can do for them, i.e. granting them eternal life."


Hey captain, why don't you leave bible interpertation to the experts. No, it's not just the OT that lays down the rules about homosexuality. The NT has them too. It's a good idea to be well versed in something before you correct someone who is well versed in something. And this pathetic image of Jesus running around with the sinners saying "Hey, it's all alright man", this is the filter of someone who has no idea what is in the bible or what it means.

Come on, anyone who puts humble and atheist in the same sentence can't think anyone is going to take them seriously. Seriously, if we were to pop some of these egos here you'd be in danger of creating a sonic boom. I find it amusing that atheists like to say they are all great happy loving people who actually do more good works than the average Christian does. LOL This must be your non-neckbearded internet dwelling variety. Not at all the bitter, purile, egotists who love to trash believers at any opportunity that I've experienced. I'm sorry but atheists are terrible people. Immoral, selfish and apathetic to a T. Violent and angry too. Atheists are usually the worst kind of people you could imagine.

Yeah!!
In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
First of all, it's not special status that they are seeking; it's equal status. This will fit in nicely with the whole "I just don't see homosexuals are being seperate or different than anyone else, because they're not" thing.

Second, the rules that you are referring to come from the old testament. All of the stupid rules of the old testament, like cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin, were kind of like, you know, made fun of by this dude that began preaching around 30 C.E. He had some craaaaaazy ideas like loving your enemy, helping the poor, serving others, respecting women, paying taxes, and just generally being kind to every one even if they are mean to you. He also enjoyed just chilling with sinners. It was like, his favourite thing to do. His ideas were so radical that he was executed (to death) by close minded, selfish people, that thought that it was better to oppress people than treat them nice. "That Jesus dude will cause an uprising against us! Let's kill him!"

I find it incredibly ironic that it is the atheists that I know who actually live humble and caring lives that are closer to Jesus' teachings than the so called Christians who are only selfish beings, interested in what Jesus can do for them, i.e. granting them eternal life.

So, if you're going to call yourself a Christian, please, start treating others with kindness and actually ask your self "what would Jesus do?" I'm pretty sure that if Jesus met Dan Savage they would probably go for a beer together and chill out. Maybe they would even get high? After that Dan would give Jesus some sex tips. Jesus certainly wouldn't condemn someone for who they love.

Happy Easter.>> ^shinyblurry:

Sorry, it isn't bigotry. I just don't see homosexuals are being seperate or different than anyone else, because they're not. They're sinners, and what they do is sin. It doesn't make them special, it actually makes them quite common. If someone is going to lead a sinful lifestyle, no one should support it.
God gave us rules to live by and one of them is to refrain from homosexual relations. It's only recently that earth has become so corrupt and fallen so far that anyone would actually consider giving these sodomites special status in society. if it wasn't so sad it would be amusing.

First of all, it's not special status that they are seeking; it's equal status. This will fit in nicely with the whole "I just don't see homosexuals are being seperate or different than anyone else, because they're not" thing.

Second, the rules that you are referring to come from the old testament. All of the stupid rules of the old testament, like cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin, were kind of like, you know, made fun of by this dude that began preaching around 30 C.E. He had some craaaaaazy ideas like loving your enemy, helping the poor, serving others, respecting women, paying taxes, and just generally being kind to every one even if they are mean to you. He also enjoyed just chilling with sinners. It was like, his favourite thing to do. His ideas were so radical that he was executed (to death) by close minded, selfish people, that thought that it was better to oppress people than treat them nice. "That Jesus dude will cause an uprising against us! Let's kill him!"

I find it incredibly ironic that it is the atheists that I know who actually live humble and caring lives that are closer to Jesus' teachings than the so called Christians who are only selfish beings, interested in what Jesus can do for them, i.e. granting them eternal life.

So, if you're going to call yourself a Christian, please, start treating others with kindness and actually ask your self "what would Jesus do?" I'm pretty sure that if Jesus met Dan Savage they would probably go for a beer together and chill out. Maybe they would even get high? After that Dan would give Jesus some sex tips. Jesus certainly wouldn't condemn someone for who they love.

Happy Easter.>> ^shinyblurry:

Sorry, it isn't bigotry. I just don't see homosexuals are being seperate or different than anyone else, because they're not. They're sinners, and what they do is sin. It doesn't make them special, it actually makes them quite common. If someone is going to lead a sinful lifestyle, no one should support it.
God gave us rules to live by and one of them is to refrain from homosexual relations. It's only recently that earth has become so corrupt and fallen so far that anyone would actually consider giving these sodomites special status in society. if it wasn't so sad it would be amusing.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Truth!>> ^entr0py:

>> ^CrushBug:
Did I just watch a video that contained the subjects of Faith and Logic and Tolerance? Mind=blown. She needs to be made Pope or something, like right now.

Absolutely, she would make a superior Church president. Unfortunately within Mormonism every boy above the age of 11 is considered a priest, while priesthood cannot be granted to women under any circumstances. Within the hierarchy of the church she will always be inferior to a vast number of children - because they have peinses, however small.
It's always been difficult for me to imagine how self-respecting gays stay in the church. But it's good to remember it's equally baffling that any self-respecting women stay.

>> ^CrushBug:

Did I just watch a video that contained the subjects of Faith and Logic and Tolerance? Mind=blown. She needs to be made Pope or something, like right now.


Absolutely, she would make a superior Church president. Unfortunately within Mormonism every boy above the age of 11 is considered a priest, while priesthood cannot be granted to women under any circumstances. Within the hierarchy of the church she will always be inferior to a vast number of children - because they have peinses, however small.

It's always been difficult for me to imagine how self-respecting gays stay in the church. But it's good to remember it's equally baffling that any self-respecting women stay.

Pretty sure there are rapists in every country in the world, whether society and culture respects women or not.

>> ^thepinky:
I don't think that anyone said that women are inherently weak. I was explaining to imstellar the reason that most of us feel the way we do about the "we don't hit girls" attitude. I said that women are smaller and weaker on average. Others have said that this particular woman is smaller and weaker than the man assaulting her.
And, yes, all gender issues aside, the violence should not have occurred.
>> ^Creature:
As a woman that bothered to go out and learn to defend herself I call bullshit on this women are inherently weak crap. Should this situation have happened? No. Why? Because violence has no place in a civilized society.


Take a look at the following. You've explained yourself, but what else am I supposed to infer from these?
>> ^thepinky:
Oh, imstellar, I almost agree with you, but you have to take into consideration that no matter how equal we want to be in other respects, women are biologically different than men. We are smaller and weaker on average. And I think that most of us believe that violence against the weak is more wrong than violence against the strong


>> ^rychan:
>> It's not immoral to think violence against the defenseless is worse than violence against the strong.

>> ^rychan The violence isn't worse against the woman just because it will hurt her more. It's worse because she can't fight back and can't defend herself..


The ability to defend one's self isn't 100% tied to size and physical strength. Certain styles of martial arts actually work better for smaller than average people. The basic skills needed to to defend one's self can be learned by a majority of people. So, while I can understand how traditional roles encourage the delicate flower stereotype (I too tend to get more disgusted when I see a woman being harmed), I tend consider defenselessness to be a choice.

Oh, imstellar, I almost agree with you, but you have to take into consideration that no matter how equal we want to be in other respects, women are biologically different than men. We are smaller and weaker on average. And I think that most of us believe that violence against the weak is more wrong than violence against the strong.
In an ideal society we would look at each case individually. As in: If this woman had been bigger and stronger than the man, the violence committed against her would have been less wrong. But seeing as how she is smaller and appears to be weaker, it just makes us a little bit more pissed off.
But we don't usually look at every case individually. Since woman are smaller on average, we think that violence against them is more wrong (on average). And if you want to look at it from an evolution standpoint (this could be utter bull), it may actually be instinctual for men to feel the need to protect women from violence. We're pretty defenseless when we're pregnant, you know. That's basic survival and reproduction instincts we're talking about. Strong stuff. Not to mention that, historically, violent crimes involving a man and a woman are far more often committed by men.
Little girls should definitely be taught that they can't just hit boys whenever they feel like it, and I think that a healthy "we don't hit girls" construct is good for little boys to learn as long as it is coupled with a healthy "we don't let girls hit us."
>> ^imstellar28:
Sexism
1. Discrimination based on gender.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotping of social roles based on gender.
Moral position:
Violence against others, men or women, is wrong
Immoral position:
Violence against women, but not men, is wrong
Sexist position
Violence against women is more wrong than violence against men.
Just so you understand what you are and where you stand in the eyes of the LORD-AH

mmm... it seems this thread has been resuscitated so i fear no repercussion of posting my hello!

my name is chris and i've been registered to the sift since december of 2006. i'm obviously a lurker more than anything, but it's really because i don't spend a lot of time digging up videos. the only reason i felt compelled to find something worth posting was to get rid of my probie status! (i trust you all understand.)

i've got a bachelor's in german from UC berkeley, but i spent about 3.5 years learning electrical engineering and computer programming. after getting my heart broken, i changed my major to change my friends and surroundings. i have not looked back since; being out of the basement is invaluable, and so are great books and interesting people.

i love burlesque. you can probably find me at the uptown club in oakland or somewhere in the city at a show. (that's san francisco.)

thanks to a woman whom i've adored for years, but never done anything with, i'm addicted to cycling. i ride fixed gear for fun, not fashion. the bike has a phrase i painted on it, "my other bike has gears." i'm also a mechanic, and i used to autocross my old 1989 honda accord because, well, why not.

videosift has been one of my regular stops on the internet... along with big picture, nytimes, wsj, and (until recently) my warcraft guild's website. i have been "clean" for about three months now. i have no intention to return to addictive gaming.

i'm studying to become a recognized beer judge by the BJCP. i will know my score after the november 14th 2008 test. my background is in wine, but beer is amazingly complex and terribly tasty.

currently, i work for an enormous independent auto shop in berkeley. we are solar powered, do anything hybrid, and have a great reputation. i am the sys-ad, but i also interface between the mechanics and customers since i don't mind talking with people.

i'm 26, and single... but it's my 'fault.' i don't like to fuck around, probably because i respect women; but i'm a good looking guy and could easily capitalize on that. i have eyes for two women who, for reasons beyond my feeble masculine conception, seem to have little interest in me.

the sift rages on! i would like to thank cat power for being the musical backdrop for reading this sift-talk.

much love and respect for everyone, including the impressive (intelligent) trolls as well. i do not condone choggie's downvote/discard actions, but his comments consistently brought a smirk to my face.

eff (like the letter, not the keebler )