>> ^harlequinn:

Thank you, apology accepted. Perhaps I should have worded my question as one sentence, the second question was only meant to refine the first question - text communication is an imperfect medium.
You raise a very interesting point. I believe arranged marriage in most cultures is equally unfair on both males and females since they are both under duress to marry. In this clip we can only assume the males are under duress to compete for marriage. If she is their prize, they are equally her prize. And there will be two loser's on the male side but none on the female side.
Is fighting tradition a good thing? Apparently arranged marriages stick together more than traditional ones ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage - just looked it up, who knew!!)
In regards to the female in this clip: Is the abandonment of feminine characteristics a good thing? And the adoption of masculine characteristics a good thing?
In this particular instance they diminish the natural advantage males have in physical activities (an undeniable scientific fact) and make a statistically improbable situation. In a warrior culture, males are unlikely to be this incompetent.
>> ^hpqp:
@harlequinn, my apologies for assuming that your question was simply rhetorical, but concede that, since you give an answer to your own question (albeit slapped with a question mark), it comes off as very rhetorical indeed.
So is this the best way to remedy this? Make a movie measuring a girl's worth against her ability to do or better exactly what boys do?
And it's that "answer" that prompted my (dismissive, I admit) comment. This clip shows the main character shooting arrows better than the male contestantsy yes, but that is not the point; the point is, why is she doing that? Because she does not want to be married off; she is confronting the role of "princess to be married" because she wants to be able to make her own decisions about her life. I could go on about how women have historically gained rights by proving their worth in so-called "male" occupations (WWII anyone?) but I think the point is clear enough.



Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.

1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.

2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.

4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.

_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}

>> ^quantumushroom:

If you support gay marriage, you support polygamy by default.

Bullshit. Polygamy is defined by wikipedia as a marriage which includes more than two partners. Or would you prefer websters, which defines it as marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time. The fact that a marriage contains two wives or two husbands does not make it polygamous.

>> ^quantumushroom:

At least you, @ChaosEngine have the stones to actually support both. I'd even go so far as to agree with you, with the exception that I'll freely admit there are/will be many unforeseen problems with both gay marriage and polygamy.


We've had gay marriage (actually civil unions but marriage in all but name) in NZ for years now. Society has failed to collapse. Are there potential issues with polygamy? Undoubtedly. Hell, I'll admit that there are potential issues with gay marriage. Thing is, there are issues with marriage, period. Even in a committed monogamous heterosexual marriage, there's all kinds of problems, because people are flawed. Being gay or polygamous doesn't make them any more or less flawed. I'd prefer we dropped the polygamous angle now, since it's derailing the conversation. I don't mind debating it, but I feel it's orthogonal to this issue.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I don't equate pedophilia with homosexuality. What I dispute is your confidence that within 20 years, whatever authority you believe the State will have to prevent pedophile "unions" will still exist.

Well, the state grants the marriage licence. I see no proposal to change that, so the authority will remain intact. As for allowing pedophile "unions", how does gay marriage affect that? Age of consent is a well defined concept that applies to everyone, heterosexual or homosexual.

I really am getting tired of repeating this, but context, nuance, judgement. Think is not a four letter word. The world is not black and white, and it is an oversimplification to view it as such. War is sometimes justified, lying is sometimes the right thing to do and I am comfortable making the distinction between a union of two consenting adults and an adult and a child. Why? Because I can weigh up the merits of each individual case and make a judgement.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If no one here has a problem with california or any state revoking election results, aka the will of the people, welcome to fascism.

Fascism? Are you actually serious? Leaving aside how much fascists really don't like homosexuality, you have completely failed to understand democracy.

There are already well defined limits on the will of the people. To use your own analogy, how would you feel if california had passed an amedment legalising pedophilia?

If you support gay marriage, you support polygamy by default. At least you, @ChaosEngine have the stones to actually support both. I'd even go so far as to agree with you, with the exception that I'll freely admit there are/will be many unforeseen problems with both gay marriage and polygamy.


I don't equate pedophilia with homosexuality. What I dispute is your confidence that within 20 years, whatever authority you believe the State will have to prevent pedophile "unions" will still exist.

If no one here has a problem with california or any state revoking election results, aka the will of the people, welcome to fascism.


>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^quantumushroom:
If these votes are based only on how people are wired or some all-purpose equality then the State has no right to bar plural aka polygamous marriages.
Leaving aside the utterly retarded slippery slope that gay marriage leads to polygamy (which undoubtedly leads to marrying a donkey in your insane world), who gives a fuck?
Provided all parties are consenting adults, I have no problem with any number of people marrying each other. You want to live in a bisexual transgender four way with two guys, a chick and a shemale? Hey, if you're happy, more power to you.
I suppose next you're going to try to equate homosexuality to pedophilia. again.

Absolutely. I believe that Newt's fidelity issues (given their frequency and consistency) are indicative of a larger lack of personal integrity that I don't find desirable in a presidential candidate. Legally it still does not disqualify him, but I'd sure as heck not vote for him, nor do I think he is above scrutiny. It's much like the people protesting abortion clinics getting abortions themselves, a la "The only moral abortion is my abortion", except replace "abortion" with "affair."

My point of replying to QM's rhetoric (of which the 'sift is familiar with) was to remind him that both cases must be treated the same, as it's just another crossover of sexual transgressions with political career. If he vilified Clinton during the Lewinksy scandal then he is obligated to similarly vilify Gingrich; the flip side being that if he supports Gingrich in spite of his flaws, then he must have opposed Clinton's impeachment in 1998.

P.S. I'm of the camp that thinks QM is just a very good troll and doesn't actually believe the stuff he says. But for the sake of the sift we still have to take his comments at face value.

In reply to this comment by RadHazG:
>> ^HaricotVert:

I had to read the entire Starr Report - yes, all of it (for a class) - and nowhere is it remotely suggested that Lewinsky was coerced into doing what she did (emphasis in your quote below). In fact, quite the opposite: she had very strong feelings for Clinton, who reciprocated much of them.
But that minor detail aside, it sounds like you and I are in agreement on the point of marital infidelity not outright disqualifying someone for the office of the Presidency. Since you're giving Newt a free pass on his moral/ethical scorecard, you must have similarly given Clinton a free pass during the scandal and believed he should have never been impeached in the first place. After all, any other position would just be a double standard, no?
>> ^quantumushroom:
A Republican isn't perfect? SOUND THE ALARM. Suddenly it's time for liberals to pretend to have ethics and morals again! Remember that sociopathic adulterer elected to the White House in the 90s with that whole 'Suck this or lose your job' thing in his past? Yeah, me neither.



marital infidelity is one thing, it's the way in which Newt handled and participated in it that I find reprehensible. Clinton got his dick sucked and lied about it (and more importantly actually went to court about it even if he did get off. no pun intended) and Newt has treated his wives as if they were little more than cars he kept trading off for a newer model after test driving the new one for a while on lease.

>> ^HaricotVert:

I had to read the entire Starr Report - yes, all of it (for a class) - and nowhere is it remotely suggested that Lewinsky was coerced into doing what she did (emphasis in your quote below). In fact, quite the opposite: she had very strong feelings for Clinton, who reciprocated much of them.
But that minor detail aside, it sounds like you and I are in agreement on the point of marital infidelity not outright disqualifying someone for the office of the Presidency. Since you're giving Newt a free pass on his moral/ethical scorecard, you must have similarly given Clinton a free pass during the scandal and believed he should have never been impeached in the first place. After all, any other position would just be a double standard, no?
>> ^quantumushroom:
A Republican isn't perfect? SOUND THE ALARM. Suddenly it's time for liberals to pretend to have ethics and morals again! Remember that sociopathic adulterer elected to the White House in the 90s with that whole 'Suck this or lose your job' thing in his past? Yeah, me neither.



marital infidelity is one thing, it's the way in which Newt handled and participated in it that I find reprehensible. Clinton got his dick sucked and lied about it (and more importantly actually went to court about it even if he did get off. no pun intended) and Newt has treated his wives as if they were little more than cars he kept trading off for a newer model after test driving the new one for a while on lease.

Spare me Newt. I am appalled that you would treat your wives in such a manner. If you treat the women you supposedly love in such a way how in the hell is anyone beyond the obviously brainwashed blind fools you've conned supposed to trust you with the entire country? This man is a pathetic lying politicians politician and the fact that he is in any way still around and relevant is the greatest sign of whats wrong with politics in this country than anything I can come up with.

In my teens? Yes, of course I was just friends with girls.

In my twenties? Hell no, I had female friends but I wanted to sleep with them all. I am a guy after all.

Married in my thirties? Sure, but because I am married, they are all my wife's friends, and they wouldn't sleep with me anyway! Now I just sit back with all the other husbands and stare rather grossly at all the wives and their friends. We never say anything, but we are all thinking about the same exact thing.

This is why men in this age-group need wives.

How do you give yourself the moral authority to take 30 wives and have sex with teenage girls? Make it a religion!

>> ^LadyDeath:

Is not about Apple products and such a thing. This is about a human being who left behind a wife and his children. A person who battled with cancer.RIP Steve ,you made world a better place and you will be truly missed.


Actually, it's not about a man who left behind a wife and kids. I don't know Jobs wife and kids, I don't even think I've even seen a picture of them. Thousands of people with wives and kids die every day, and we don't mourn their passing.

His death means something to people because of the companies and products he helped create. There's nothing wrong with that; if we mourned every random person (regardless of the individual tragedy to their friends and families) we would spend our lives in grief.

Jobs was a visionary and a leader. Whether you liked his vision or not is irrelevant.

And @VoodooV, I don't think he single-handedly did anything. There may have been scores of engineers, designers, etc behind him, but he was the one with balls to risk it on their vision. You say if not him, someone else, well that's true of any great achievement (Crick and Watson with DNA, Newton with pretty much most of science, Hillary with Everest, all had people close behind them). It doesn't matter, what matters is that he did it.

RIP Steve.

> This is how I plan to commute to and from work some day.

This is how I plan to crush my enemies and make their wives lament.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'awards, army wives, kim delaney, drunk, trainwreck' to 'boo, booed, awards, army wives, kim delaney, drunk, trainwreck' - edited by calvados

There are plenty of Christians who accept and fight for gay marriage.

Will ALL Christians accept gay marriage? Probably not. There are some Christians who still consider their wives and children as chattel.

Upvote for the atheist win, though. Love it!

@jmzero Yes, but you forget the power of fear as well. Humans fear the unknown, and if someone hasn't had any interaction with gay people, they will fear them. Bigotry, however, is nuture, not nature. Once people understand we don't have to hide our children, hide our wives, hide our husbands 'cuz they're not climbin' in our windows, they tend to say "meh, gay guy, whatever."

Awww, look at the way they treat their widdle wives... awww.