- View Single Post - Attention Seeker Thread. - Apocalypse Now..... Enlightenment Tomorrow.
View Single Post
post #2710 of (permalink) Old 10-26-2012, 03:08 PM
country flag tripwires
Registered User
tripwires's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Singapore
Age: 29
Posts: 13,525
Re: Attention Seekers Vol. 2012 - Woman virginity is worth $780,000 USD.

Originally Posted by GOAT = Fed View Post

Any examples? I see a lot of laws in favour of women nowadays, hardly any that clearly favour men.
That would be absolutely politically incorrect. But the point is that affirmative action laws or whatever they are called in a particular country are enacted to correct perceived inequalities in certain segments of society. The fact that there are hardly any laws that favour men is probably because men have not historically been discriminated against on the basis of their gender (race, religion, etc are separate issues).

Women also more or less earn the same as men.

Women are white knighted to hell and back by men.

In what way are women still catching up with men?
You really think there's true equality? I'll only go as far as to say that the situation in most developed, capitalist societies are more equal than it was 50/60 years ago. Equality isn't only about earning capacity and/or income; just because women earn roughly the same as men, doesn't mean that we afforded the same respect as men. To give a very obvious example, the entertainment industry doesn't objectify men even half as much as it objectifies and exploits women. For every Abercrombie & Fitch advertisement of a half naked man, you'll see a disproportionate number of advertisements featuring scantily-clad women in suggestive poses.

Let's move out of our comfort zone for a second and consider the plight of women in backward shitholes like Saudi Arabia and African villages that still practice FGM. Let's consider Islamic laws that allow men to have up to four wives but nothing similar for women. Let's consider deeply-entrenched cultural perceptions that deem swearing "unlady-like", whatever the hell that means. There's only so much the law can do to promote gender equality; the rest of it - an overwhelming proportion - is a matter of social and cultural perceptions.

So the solution is to reverse this and discriminate against men?
Does that law really discriminate against men though? From what I read in the article, it gives employers the option to hire a candidate to fill certain quotas. It does not force all employers to set a quota of males, females, whites, blacks, etc in their workplace. It would plausibly lead to some discriminatory hiring policies, but it would not be on the same scale as denying voting rights to women, for example. For the record, I don't think it's a good law at all, but you're making it sound like it seeks only to protect women when its coverage extends to racial minorities and disabled people. There is a huge distinction in the impact of a statute that seeks to protect ONLY women and one that seeks to protect a group of minoritiies, INLCUDING women.

In any event, I don't agree with affirmative action at all. I am very Singaporean in this regard: I believe in pure meritocracy. You get the job that you deserve based on your skills and qualifications. Nothing else should factor in the equation.

Originally Posted by finishingmove View Post
Watch this video, and if you think people have the power after watching it, then ...
I posted that emoticon not because I disagreed but because I found it funny how you phrased it.

The video is too long. I need to study.

Originally Posted by tennizen View Post
Also, neither men nor women deserve any privileges, are both equally loathsome and all rights stripped off them must promptly be granted to non-human animals instead.
I agree. Animals should take over.

Originally Posted by Ilovetheblues_86 View Post

About woman rights, only one thing: no law will give women the same treatment as men, only education and higher morality and ethics in the society. In other words, women will only be respected when humans start respecting each other, and this will take probably 200 years or more, but I do believe that at one point such protective laws wont be " that " needed.

Anyway MTF is supposed to be a place where my brain can relax, so this serious conversation should stop now.

Roger Federer

Originally Posted by Matt01 View Post
Fed's groundstrokes never were that good to begin with.
tripwires is offline  
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome