Resident Evil Apocalypse is better than women

what was the argument before? the underdog gets the cheers? actually, that's more like the guy doesn't deserve the woman, and she's sort of coming down to his level. how many times have you seen that? and the fat husband and thin wife isn't THAT common. the only sit-com like that presently comes to mind is "fresh prince."but think, oh, "boy meets world" or "home improvement" or hell, even "the simpsons." who's the smart parent and who's the dumb parent? when they get in disputes, who's right? is the wife a hottie? is it telling men they can get nookie from hot chicks even if they're ugly themselves? or is it saying that women are always right and most men are stupid?

I love you, Crash (*cough*...platonically )! Silent Hill is my favourite game!

earth not unless you count suburbia that's nice. statistics are fun!now, is that men or women who filing suit? it doesn't say. i know our last sexist manager at my job paid the women more, and he was a REAL creep. *I* could have gotten him on sexual harrassment charges.what about the section on sexual harrasment? and how many men are being sexually harrassed without reporting it?see, i've also read some nice info on the sexual harrassment of men in the workplace, and abuse of men at home. we're told to take it by society. we get laughed at for getting beaten up by a woman, or congratulated for getting used sexually by women. if a girl wakes up the next morning and regrets it, it's rape. same with a guy? no.i saw this legal case once where a wife was beating her husband. on one punch, she missed and hit the door jam, shattering several bones in her hand. the husband got charged with spousal abuse. yes, the war is largely won.

i mean the mainstream of philosophical thought... though feminism is not actually mainstream thought at all.anyways. since when was the nyt bestseller list a list of good books? ew.

quote:

---

Originally posted by purpledawn:

Just because people with their own personal agendas have highjacked the movement, doesn't negate the primary premise.

​

---

well actually. movements have these things called revolutions. just like scientific thought and philosophy and stuff. the agenda of a few can change the entire movement. it no longer is the agenda of the few, but the new course for the entire idea base. you should read 'the structure of scientific revolutions' by thomas kuhn. it has even more applications than even he thought.

there is a huge difference between a specific example of sexual objectification and a broad generalization of 'women are so oppressed'. it's not specific female oppression... it could happen (and is now beginning to) to either gender. and frankly it's not even an example of oppression... it's a personal insult that i am no more valuable than the tits i lug around.and you are being argumentative and petty and i don't appreciate it. admins?

why? so, let's see:
public opinion of it: wrong.
academic philosophy: also wrong.
majority of current authors in the subject: still wrong.
your view: right?take a class in it before you argue with me. you're not getting all the facts. check. my sophomore year of college, one of our english teachers disappeared for a few months. turns out she went to china to pick up an adopted child. i grew up on a university campus, you can't tell me that a woman's career in academia ends when she has a child. it's just simply not true. i know LOTS of women professors with children.you can however tell me that there are less women professors than men professors. as long as it's not a product of hiring discrimination, that's fine. quite the contrary. 90% of the music you hear on the radio is in a genre created by black people. rap, hip-hop, sure, but don't forget rock and roll, soul, r+b. these are not the inventions of white people.i could list more. but i'm already coming off as a sexist, i don't wanna come off as a racist too. like fresh prince? i do love that show.no, go back far enough and it's the other way around. watch the honeymooners or i love lucy. take a women's studies class. things like "the words 'manhole cover' are discriminant against women" are actual issues! not big ones, but they cover it! but, ok, let's talk about real issues. like, maybe as the ceo of, say hearst publications (who publishes cosmo, esquire, etc)? women's magazines, how about men's, like playboy? how about one of the largest .com's on the internet, ebay? how about the makers of the hp computer i'm on right now? heck, they're #13 on the fortune 500.granted, the percentage is not good (not even close) but it's not like there are no women ceo's. requiring there be an equal number is just as discriminant as having none. as long as the opportunity is equal, it doesn't matter. so basically, if there IS a problem, seek to correct the promotional opportunities. i would vote for a woman if she represented my political views. i'm willing to bet that first woman who runs for the presidency will win by a landslide, just because she's a woman.in truthfullness, america is not a democracy. we do not "elect" the people who represent us, we vote for people who decided to elect someone who represents the upper .1% of the country. they're all rich, white men, over the age of 35. bush and kerry don't represent me any more than they represent one of my lady-friends, like brenna.but that's this country. other countries have had LOTS of female prime ministers or presidents. dated argument: that battle's been won.http://www.washingtonpost.com/...icles/A38979-2004Jun13.html now this is the emasculating, derogatory kind of argument i was talking about. so lets see, vaginas are more important than penises? is that what you're saying? exactly. take one. you're obviously missing something. even the non-activist camps do a lot more than criticize literature, they criticize all of society, popular opinion, science, math, just about everything. but i agree that it's just criticism.

if you had ever taken a single women's studies class, you'd know that ecology is fundamental to the movement. at least, nowadays.becuase they work off the view that people think of nature as female and a wild beast to be conquered, and mankind as male, and therefore men (mankind) oppress, subjugate, and use nature for their own gain, they side with nature and argue strongly for conservation.that's also the reason they reject modern science: sir francis bacon viewed nature as wild (female) and to be explored and understood by the civilized (male). it's really hard to keep track of which bias is which, because alot of time they put their own worldview on things, like this. who's equating nature with the feminine? bacon, or the femininsts?

Post 105 of this thread. Shraff may have jumped the gun assuming, but I was being a dumbass and as such I'll admit she had at least a little justification to assume I was sheltered.The same goes for you seeing as you assumed that anyone telling a racist joke was automatically racist for real. I was being sarcastic, a good tactic for getting people to cough up their actual age. Although you're the first alledged adult I've talked to who took racist humor so seriously, outside of a very strict church I went to awhile back(Southern Baptist I believe?). I'm not saying they're perfectly okay to tell to anyone, but niether are dead baby jokes and you weren't harping on what's-his-face. You think he actually kills babies and throws them in dumpsters?[Edited to fix the 'alledged adult' sentence because it sounded like a sweeping generalization at first draft.]This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 09-21-2004 07:10 PM

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit. http://www.BadPreacher.5u.com (incomplete, but look anyway!)

Oh, sexism is alive and well, let me tell you. Take Wal-Mart's, pay scales and job distributions, for example. More at The Women of Wal-MartNow that we've covered the nation's largest retail chain, do we want to get into the largest employer of women in the country (the DoD)? Sexism is the least of the problems there. Here's a brief article to let you know the current situation of women in the army. Here's some numbers for you that show the effect of such policies.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I'm gonna have to go with bacon. You gotta watch out for any food products that God does not approve of because they're known to talk lies to you in your sleep.P.S. Let's stay on topic. Blind dates suck, and Resident Evil Apocalypse is officially better than any movies that you people like!

yes, walmart in the anti-christ, we all knew this already.i bet we could find racism there just as easily. go down to your local walmart. who's tending the registers? who's mopping the floors? who's the manager? it's nice to call sexism when there's nothing to compare to. what would you say is the rate of men who are being raped in the armed forces? it's more than you think. it's horrible no matter who it happens to, man or woman. men, btw, are less likely to come forward about it. keep that in mind too.but, oh i forgot, victimization can only go one way. and only men commit sexual violence.

What, any?Even 2001 - A space odyssey?This teen film u speak of, tis all action and no meaning I'll bet. lol. Tis ready made for babas like u. All these boring explosions and fighting movies I tell u, they have no meaning.

Oh, come on, now. Are you going to deny the fact that the military has a completely male-oriented culture in the officer ranks that has been trying to cover up things like rapes? Did you not read the article I provided before the study on the rate of rapes of women in the military? Here, let me quote:In reference to reports of assault on women in the military - to quote Sanchez: "The women asked to be here, so now let them take what comes with the territory."The military takes an incredibly lax attitude toward rapes; women often report that they weren't even transferred, upon request, away from the unit in which the perpetrator served. This is an incredible thing to picture - having to serve with - and sometimes even salute and follow the commands of - the person who raped you.Lets follow the timeline here, just for one isolated set of incidents. Karpinski complained several times about assaults taking place. Sanchez, and under him Diamond, did absolutely nothing. Only when the victims took to the media was an investigation launched.Just so people don't miss the numbers:30% of women in the military report having either been the victim of a rape or an attempted rape
3/4ths reported sexual harassment
54% reported unwanted sexual contact
37% of the rape victims had been raped more than once
14% of rape victims had been gang rapedYour attempted dodge that this wasn't so much an issue because we don't know the number of men raped in the military is a dodge. Even if the ratios were merely on par with those in the general population (doubtful), that would mean that 91% of the cases were "male rapes female", 8% would be "male rapes male", 0.8% would be "female rapes female", and 0.2% would be "female rapes male". However, seing as I can't find a *single* case of "male rapes male" or "female rapes male" that's made it to the media, or been uncovered in an investigation, I am only left to assume that they're relatively rare, and that we're only seing an increase in the "male rapes female" case.And, of course, we're seing the further problem of an institution that bloody doesn't care.Simply, these raw numbers - and statements like have been repeatedly been given talking about how women should expect it in the military - are simply incomprehensible. Everything about how the military treats rapes is just crazy. They use the McDowell checklist, which reports a 60% rate of "false reporting" on rapes, as opposed to the general population's 8%. They don't allow unit transfers as a general rule. The perpetrators are very rarely prosecuted. Complaints often lead to further harassment. This has been a huge problem.Here's another article on the subject:
Page not found – Awakened WomanThey link to a DOD study on the subject that I'd recommend that you read:
http://www.dod.gov/news/May2004/d20040513SATFReport.pdfThe results are really quite damning. And it's all due to this male-oriented culture. Not surprising, really.This message has been edited by Rei, 09-21-2004 07:58 PM

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

As I showed before, this is simply a ludicrous statement in the face of hundreds of schools adopting paused tenure clocks for pregnancy. Pregnant women simply can't continue the academic pace through their pregnancy, especially in the sciences; this puts them at a disadvantage for making tenure. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data", Arach. Given that some 60-70 percent of undergrads are women, these days, wouldn't it be hiring discrimination by definition? So what? Again, despite the overwhelmingly black contribution to popular urban culture these days, we don't consider society "black-ized." Oh, well! Hire the band and we'll dance in the streets! There's one or two women CEO's! Feminism has won! Boo-fuckin-hoo. Maybe the substantially larger pay for the same work we recieve as men will ease the sting a little bit. You know that it's not. You know that what I'm saying is that problems like sexual assault, pay equity, and other examples of sexism are far, far more important than making sure your feelings aren't hurt, Arach. Get over yourself, and don't try to offer such ridiculous strawmen in place of my arguments. You just look foolish. Oh, I see. You attended one college, so you're an authority on women's studies at all colleges?