We didn’t establish this. Some guy said so, but that doesn’t make such objectifying, misogynistic crap (“the price of pussy”? seriously?) true.
You get the benefit of not being shamed for doing the same thing, through most of history.
You’re a man who still uses objectifying language for women routinely. I hope this doesn’t mean that you actually objectify women in real life, but I’m not particularly hopeful.
And what has “most of history” done for me today?
You shouldn’t be. I objectify women a lot. Women tend to like that. Men too. I certainly wish more women would objectify me. Although I keep my sexual objectification out of professional environments. When hiring women (& I do that) I objectify them solely on their professional merit. You should try that some time.
Congratulations.
You win the thread on the basis of the best self-parody.
:rolleyes: Ri-i-i-ight.
Assuming you’re a straight white man, it’s provided you with the easiest starting difficulty setting on this game of “humans on planet Earth”, in terms of orientation/ethnicity/gender.
I’m fine with consensual adults sexually objectifying each other, but you’ve been sexually objectifying every woman everywhere with some of your posts.
Really? Not that I shouldn’t have known better, but I was actually hoping substantive response.
That now makes three people who claim to know more about child custody than I do, but don’t know shit.
Another top notch quality post that really gives everybody a lot of stuff to think about. The :rolleyes: was a particular hard hitting point. No prize though! You’re a white male, you got your prize when you was born into moral privilege and social dominance.
ahh yes, back to THE BORG theory. I guess that makes all homeless men all that more of a bunch of deadbeat losers when they had it so easy to begin with. But do you have a way to quantify those difficulty settings of this game? Or are you mainly just spewing unverifiable unfalsifiable nonsense?
btw. you forgot cis.
My post expressed exactly the thoughtfulness that yours did.
No, it doesn’t mean they had it easy – just easier then if they were black, or female, or gay (or trans). Growing up with an alcoholic deadbeat dad and a drug addict mother means it’s tough no matter your race/gender/orientation. But it’s still easier to succeed from such a start if you’re a straight white male than if you’re not. All those challenges are hard enough on their own, but even harder if you pile on institutional and personal racism, sexism, and homophobia.
More video-game speak – Obama’s girls have a starting difficulty moderately high based on gender and race, but then they also start with an enormous bonus in wealth, class and status. It won’t be particularly hard for Sasha and Malia to succeed in life, but it would be even easier for them if they were white males.
Same goes for homeless white dude. He had an easy starting difficulty based on gender/race/orientation, but no starting wealth, class, or status, and his parents treated him like crap. Even the “easy” starting difficulty is hard when you start with such disadvantages… but it would be even harder were he having to deal with racism, sexism, and/or homophobia.
Then there’s me, who knows a shit-ton more about child custody than you, but who you refuse to engage about it.
Four! Ah ah ah!
Having tried to actually engage with you once, I’m smart enough not to try again. You’re either dense as a brick or incapable of responding in good faith.
I completely agree with you that fathers should be very much engaged in their children’s lives post-divorce.
(Didn’t want you to miss this part.)
I did not assume that the criteria I listed would favor the mother. If my husband and I were to divorce, they’d very much favor him. Which I’d be fine with. He’s done the lion’s share of parenting.
Your so determined to see the world in a particular way that you don’t even both the try to understand what you’re reading from other posters.
Ah well, apparently not so smart. What is the definition of insanity again?
High-Status Co-Eds Use ‘Slut Discourse’ to Assert Class Advantage: Interesting study, though it uses a very small sample.
This isn’t really the main point, but I thought it was amusing:
I wonder what constrains men’s sexual experimentation?
On a side note, I wonder if encouraging men to install nanny-cams in their dorm rooms is a reasonable measure to prevent a Nungesser experience?
The second study is also interesting: A Cold War Fought by Women
Because I’m pretty sure somebody up thread blamed “slut-shaming” on patriarchy. Of course, if you make “patriarchy” malleable enough, you can blame it for anything.
The thing is, those are just things you’re saying, but saying so doesn’t make it so, and you don’t seem to have anything like a remotely passable way to objectively quantify the various “difficulty settings”. It just comes off as unverifiable just-so pseudoscience like most of 3rd gen. feminism.
I could with just as much evidence claim being born a girl gives you a head start. It certainly looks that way when you consider the relative performance of boys and girls in the school system and the sex of the adult role models babies and small children are likely to be met by – not to mention the relative mortality rates of the two sexes. The end result also doesn’t seem to generally favour men more than women.
One time Zeus and Hera had an argument on who got the most out of sex, men or women. So they asked some dude who due to an accident with some snakes had been turned into a woman. Having lived both as a man and a woman, he/she reported woman had many times the enjoyment. There was a story (Nora Vincent) some time back about a feminist who as part of an experiment decided to live 18 months as a man. To experience the male privilege supposedly, although her subsequent conclusion was that women were much more privileged. I think she even needed some extensive therapy afterwards, to deal with the trauma of having been a man.
But whatever, anecdotes, in general I think it’s rather silly to reduce the vast complexities of life to a slogan about difficulty settings or who has it easier. The ideology that women have it harder than men is just another manifestation of the perpetual victim complex which has infested modern feminism. It’s doing a disservice to women, especially when it results in the kind of quota feminists which are all too common. A disservice comparable the racism of lowered expectation some blacks may face.
On another note, women do seem to objectify men much harsher than men objectify women. This stat is from OkCupid. On a 1-10 scale women in general rate men on average to be around 1.8 (dotted line to the left). Only around 19% of men are considered to be at or above average (5) looking, and only a whooping 1.1% of men are considered attractive (7+). Men on the other hand have a much more charitable bell curve to how they perceive female attractiveness, 86% of women are rated as at or above average (5), and 46% considered attractive (7+). How is it that women have come to see the vast majority of men as unattractive and only a tiny minority as attractive, whereas men consider most women to be pretty hot?
Wait! I know the answer: The Patriarchy of course.
For clarification, the part where she showed how women had the upper hand was in the dating world, challenging any stereotype that dating is an even playing field for both sexes.
She also challenged the stereotypes that men are unaccepting of difference (her male bowling teammates shrugged off her revelation that she was actually a woman passing as a man); that strip clubs are about male bonding and sexual objectification (she saw it as simply a basic release of energy devoid of any especially immoral aspect); and that monks are serene and loving (she discovered they were a bunch of assholes)
The book, incidentally, was The Self-Made Man, and my own summary of Nora’s weighing in on Who Is More Privileged is “It’s complicated, also body dysmorpia and the social role equivalent thereof are bitches.”
I also get really confused whenever I see that difficulty metaphor being bandied around. We might respect the skill it takes to build an edifice in Minecraft on the highest difficulty level in Hardcore, but someone in Creative with console commands can stamp out a dozen greater structures in that time, at no risk. And if we want employees who can accomplish tasks, and we don’t want to worry about them being taken out by a surprise Creeper and losing all their hard work, isn’t the best tactic for each individual actor to hire as privileged as possible, because every axis of privilege is an objective negative multiplier on your expected results?
If nothing else, to continue your video game analogy, I could easily imagine that a player who had dipped into creative mode more often would be a worse player than one who never had.
Of course the real issue as far as hiring goes is that it’s almost always too micro-level to take this kind of thing into account. You’d have to look at the individual candidates.
By what standard would they be worse? Resources allocated per play period? Deaths per play period? What can the so-called skilled player do in Hardcore that the other player can’t do in Creative? Pretty much the only thing I can think of is “Get along in the ruleset of Hardcore.” And why would that matter in the least, if you can remove the need for that skillset entirely by hiring people on an easier difficulty level? An archer might be much more skilled at calculating projectile drop on the fly than a rifleman, but that doesn’t make you want bows versus rifles in your army; you want the tool that does the job best.
As for the macro- vs. micro-level skill analysis…I don’t disagree, but if you’re not willing or able to do work-sample tests to look at all of your potential hire’s individual skill levels, and you’re forced to look at things that appear correlated with good results, and you know that people of certain groups face objectively fewer obstacles and achieve objectively better results, don’t you want to pick from those groups as much as possible?
I think the problem here is that when people talk of advantages, they don’t mean being handed literally everything on a plate. It’s just that - advantage, or disadvantage, not carte blanche to avoid hardship forever. To bring it back to your analogy, it’s not “This player has to play in hardcore all the time.” vs. “this player has to play in creative all the time”. Almost everyone has to spend at least some time in both - it’s just a matter of how long (or how much it can be used).
No, for several reasons. One, correlation isn’t causation. Two, it would it be a self-sustaining cycle. Three, you have to remember that you’re part of the system, too, as the prospective employer. Four, as I’ve been saying, someone who’s faced greater obstacles might easily have greater experience than someone who hasn’t. Five, facing fewer obstacles and achieving objectively better results are two factors that are going to be strongly reliant on each other in the first place. Six, I can think of no situations in hiring in which it would be reasonable to look at average populations rather than your individual candidates in the first place; even if all you’re doing is getting a CV and an interview, that provides a better basis for judgment than population statistics. And seven, using only one standard for hiring purposes would be foolish no matter that one standard.