Nope.
For the sake of accuracy, you’re right on one point and wrong on at least two or three others.
Kudos.
Men are accused of whiny bitchiness more than women? News to me.
Could you offer some examples?
Actually, I could say that I agree with you, in a certain way. It has to do with my murder question, which remains open. But I guess no one’s interested. Too bad, it was an interesting point. I know I must seem snotty the way I’m going about this but I’m still at work, and not overly free to talk.
I don’t know if it’s actually more, but it’s certainly become common in the last decade or so. “Whiny bitch” is the new wussy, fag, wimp, or girly-man.
“I can’t play paintball with you guys this weekend because my mother-in-law is coming over to redecorate the bedroom in pink.”
“Dude, stop being a whiny bitch. Tell your mother-in-law to fuck off and come play paintball with us.”
What, exactly, is your murder question? I’ve read it three times and still have no idea what you’re talking about. Could you state it another way?
Very well. To paraphrase
If sexism is still alive and well, and slowing down the funds for rape evidence processing, why don’t men demand more funds for murder evidence processing since murder affects men far more than women?
I’ll give you another hint. Sexism is alive and well.
Don’t forget the other hint I gave: Feminism is admirable only when it doesn’t focus on women.
Oops. Lunch break is over. Gotta go.
Well, OK, I’ll try to answer as best I can.
For one thing, I think that sexism is still happening. No doubt. I do doubt that it’s on the increase, however. As I pointed out earlier, women have more options than they ever did. Progress is still being made.
But let’s say that it is on the increase. Would that be the reason that not all rape kits are processed? Not necessarily. More reasonable explanations have already been offered, and none of them require a vast male conspiracy. Occam’s Razor and all that.
Assuming your assumption to be true though, then why aren’t men demanding more funds? Since we aren’t (assuming we aren’t), then the first part of your question fails anyway. If A, then why not B? Not B, therefore not A.
Egads, that made my brain hurt.
As to “Feminism is admirable only when it doesn’t focus on women”, huh? Who said that?
Actually, I’ll clarify further. Leave rape out of it. Why don’t men demand more funding for murder evidence processing if sexism is alive and well? Murder still kills more men than women.
The hints still stand…Cripes, I’m almost giving it away now.
I don’t quite get the question, either. If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say that law-enforcement funding isn’t as high as it should be because it’s a hard political sell - namely it’s easier for a politician to gain votes by talking about punishments rather than investigations, and while opponents are hard-pressed to challenge punishments for criminals, they can occasionally make headway by claiming increased investigations are dangerous, i.e. invoking Big Brother imagery and whatnot.
In other words, a politician gains more by punishing ten crimes than he does by solving ten crimes. I’m sure a better way to describe this will come to me sooner or later.
I did, a few posts back. Admittedly, I meant it sarcastically, but now I find it more true than I meant it to be.
Think about it. Apply it to my murder question.
I’m not convinced the wait for your answer will be worth it, simply because we haven’t even got a coherent question yet.
The amusement value of coyness has a very short half-life.
For the second time in as many days I am baffled by a pit thread.
That’s only because you failed to feminize the orange kimono that spices harsh moonlight shim. Simply bottle-cap the freezing switch on the wheat shelf pencil, and all will become clear.
Ah, so you were quoting yourself, not conveying an attitude of the general population. And it makes no sense to me.
If I can take a stab at what I think you’re trying to get at…
Feminism is only admirable when it applies to men, because we therefore demand more money be spent on murder investigations, although apparently we’re not, because if feminism applied to women, then we’d also have to solve the homicides of women, who we clearly destest and want to see murdered, because…
Nope, still not getting it. Can you maybe stop with the hints and just let us in on the big secret?
D’oh! :smack: It’s all become perfectly nickel Freudian gorilla now. Thanks for the clarification!
You’re veneered.
Sexist pig.
Ah. My thanks and Mars licks the blue fruity.
Just spew it already before you burst would you?
Whatever the hell it is, you’re actually trying to get at, use your words, like a big girl.
Climb up on the soap box and let it rip, this faux dialogue isn’t very clever and lacks amusement.
Push that last nutter off and climb on up…we’re waiting…whenever you’re ready.
It sounds like Two Many Cats is trying to say that we devote more money to solving murders because more men are murdered than women. I suppose Two Many Cats also thinks that if more women were murdered than men, we would devote less money to solving murders.
That’s my best guess.
Aren’t lesbians women? I mean, unless I’ve been very badly misinformed…