Author Topic: Women's March  (Read 4166 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Women's March
« Reply #70 on: January 23, 2017, 02:45:47 PM »
I would just like to state that the pay gap does indeed exist.  It's been supported by numerous studies that factor in experience, diploma, performance scores, etc.  Women simply get paid less for doing the same job.  Period.

No, it isn't a simple, undisputed fact that you can simply say exists, "period."  It is well up for debate, as a simple Google search shows.  (very quick read with some of the problems with those "studies" (interestingly, written by a woman) here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth/#f8ce0bc4766a )  Not arguing it doesn't exist in some cases, but as to whether there is a systemic gender pay gap that spans entire industries and companies is highly doubtful.  In my own experience (and you know what I do for a living), it certainly CAN exist on a case-by-case basis at some employers.  But, by-and-large, a pay disparity that is based solely on gender, as opposed to other legitimate factors, is mostly nonexistent.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 956
Re: Women's March
« Reply #71 on: January 23, 2017, 02:51:21 PM »
He said "he could" not "he did"
No evidence says he actually grabbed a woman's vagina. He didn't give a confession, he made a boastful macho bullshit statement.
 We done?

Except for multiple women's testimonial evidence that he did just that.

Anyways, how do you know his statement was BS?  He bragged about it as if he had done it in the past multiple times:

Quote
Trump: Yeah, that’s her, with the gold. I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Unidentified voice: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

{crosstalk and chuckling}

No future tense there.  He used the present participle--stating that it was a practice he currently engages in.

He also gave specifics of how he went after a married woman:

Quote
Trump: I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and fuck her. She was married.

Unidentified voice:  That’s huge news there.

Trump: No, no. Nancy. No this was— And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’ I took her out furniture– I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 956
Re: Women's March
« Reply #72 on: January 23, 2017, 03:12:32 PM »
I would just like to state that the pay gap does indeed exist.  It's been supported by numerous studies that factor in experience, diploma, performance scores, etc.  Women simply get paid less for doing the same job.  Period.

No, it isn't a simple, undisputed fact that you can simply say exists, "period."  It is well up for debate, as a simple Google search shows.  (very quick read with some of the problems with those "studies" (interestingly, written by a woman) here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth/#f8ce0bc4766a )  Not arguing it doesn't exist in some cases, but as to whether there is a systemic gender pay gap that spans entire industries and companies is highly doubtful.  In my own experience (and you know what I do for a living), it certainly CAN exist on a case-by-case basis at some employers.  But, by-and-large, a pay disparity that is based solely on gender, as opposed to other legitimate factors, is mostly nonexistent.

It doesn't have to universally exist for it to exist.

There's disagreement as to how much is related to discrimination and how much is related to other factors, but if you average the outcomes of all the studies out there, most people would conclude that there is some level of pay gap out there in the generalized sense.

But like every average, there's going to be some areas where there's no pay gap, and some areas where there's a bigger pay gap.
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2900
  • Gender: Female
Re: Women's March
« Reply #73 on: January 23, 2017, 03:13:59 PM »
It was beautiful, and well-written.  But always remember that "feminism" and "dissent" are both alike in that they can take many forms.   

I happen to feel I'm a feminist too. I have a wife and two daughters, and I wish them every opportunity and success that they can achieve, and more importantly every opportunity and success that a MAN in the same position could achieve. No more, no less. 

But that doesn't change that we all sit in a particular context, a context where all our rights compete and sometimes compromises need to be made in terms of priorities.  I did not vote for Trump, and do not support many of his policies.   As much as the time is right for a woman to be President, it's not HILLARY'S time.  You want to be heard, that's noble and right.  And just and deserved. 

Just like you don't want to be recognized only for your bra size, or how those jeans look on you, so must we all contemplate all sides of the arguments, and understand that not everyone prioritizes things the same way.  I support everything you wrote, and I am in ever-increasing debt each day to make sure that my daughters have all the tools necessary to compete at whatever level they desire.  But I don't support the implications of that march, I don't support the lies and subterfuge that went into organizing that march, and I don't necessarily agree that Trump is to blame for this or is the only person standing in the way of what we might call progress.   We have the right to these discussions, and what rights we share as men and women is in large part because of the general prosperity of our country.  If we don't first focus on those things that lift all HUMANS, we can't even get to the things that lift all WOMEN, let alone the other special interests that we must look out for in one form or another.

I'm not sure if your post was meant for me or the other poster - but I'm confused by the bolded parts and hoping you could clarify and give some examples? I don't know where priorities comes into play. Hillary has nothing to do with this march. I don't know what implications you mean, or what lies and subterfuge you think went into organizing the  march. I don't think Trump is to blame or the only person causing problems - and I don't think the people who marched feel that way either.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 83
  • Gender: Female
Re: Women's March
« Reply #74 on: January 23, 2017, 03:31:12 PM »
It was beautiful, and well-written.  But always remember that "feminism" and "dissent" are both alike in that they can take many forms.   

I happen to feel I'm a feminist too. I have a wife and two daughters, and I wish them every opportunity and success that they can achieve, and more importantly every opportunity and success that a MAN in the same position could achieve. No more, no less. 

But that doesn't change that we all sit in a particular context, a context where all our rights compete and sometimes compromises need to be made in terms of priorities.  I did not vote for Trump, and do not support many of his policies.   As much as the time is right for a woman to be President, it's not HILLARY'S time.  You want to be heard, that's noble and right.  And just and deserved. 

Just like you don't want to be recognized only for your bra size, or how those jeans look on you, so must we all contemplate all sides of the arguments, and understand that not everyone prioritizes things the same way.  I support everything you wrote, and I am in ever-increasing debt each day to make sure that my daughters have all the tools necessary to compete at whatever level they desire.  But I don't support the implications of that march, I don't support the lies and subterfuge that went into organizing that march, and I don't necessarily agree that Trump is to blame for this or is the only person standing in the way of what we might call progress.   We have the right to these discussions, and what rights we share as men and women is in large part because of the general prosperity of our country.  If we don't first focus on those things that lift all HUMANS, we can't even get to the things that lift all WOMEN, let alone the other special interests that we must look out for in one form or another.

I'm not sure if your post was meant for me or the other poster - but I'm confused by the bolded parts and hoping you could clarify and give some examples? I don't know where priorities comes into play. Hillary has nothing to do with this march. I don't know what implications you mean, or what lies and subterfuge you think went into organizing the  march. I don't think Trump is to blame or the only person causing problems - and I don't think the people who marched feel that way either.

Totally agreed.  What I saw yesterday and am still seeing today are a whole lot of (mostly) men going out of their way to turn the march into something it just wasn't.  It is just a ham-fisted way to keep women marginalized and we can all see right the fuck through it.

Next march is already planned.  April 15th.  Can't wait.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4556
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Women's March
« Reply #75 on: January 23, 2017, 03:38:54 PM »
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13611
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: Women's March
« Reply #76 on: January 23, 2017, 04:03:46 PM »
I'm just asking these marching woman to consider they ain't perfect either and have said and done stuff they wish they hadn't.

They aren't the President. Most people tend to hold the President to a slightly higher standard than your average sexually active adult female.

Offline pogoowner

  • Pancake Bunny
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2698
  • Gender: Male
Re: Women's March
« Reply #77 on: January 23, 2017, 04:15:39 PM »
Harmony and chknptpie, you two are great. Thanks for marching (and thanks to anyone else here who did as well), and thanks for the awesome posts in this thread.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4556
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Women's March
« Reply #78 on: January 23, 2017, 04:31:18 PM »
Likewise. And I say this seriously, put you two up on the mic instead of Madge and your following, understanding, and appreciation would multiply by 100. I understand more about this march from these 3 pages than I did from any number of speeches, news reports, and websites.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline DragonAttack

  • Posts: 939
Re: Women's March
« Reply #79 on: January 23, 2017, 06:32:11 PM »
Not to usurp the thread, but apologies to Bosk and Stadler for being wrong regarding an earlier erroneous post of mine regarding a quote.  A quote I made, but thought was on a different thread.  A total misread on my part.  It still does not excuse my mistake.

Sorry, all.

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2900
  • Gender: Female
Re: Women's March
« Reply #80 on: January 23, 2017, 08:21:13 PM »
Thanks for all the love from everyone - it gave me enough courage to post it to FB. Some of my reasons are straight jabs at some close family members... soooo we'll see how that goes.

Offline lonestar

  • DTF Executive Head Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 15025
  • Gender: Male
  • First Follower
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: Women's March
« Reply #81 on: January 23, 2017, 09:48:47 PM »
Thanks for all the love from everyone - it gave me enough courage to post it to FB. Some of my reasons are straight jabs at some close family members... soooo we'll see how that goes.

Too funny, I read it on FB, and was gonna tell you to post it here.


You are among many incredible women on my feed posting some amazing stuff from the march. I'm humbled to know all of you.  :heart
Quote from: nightmare_cinema
So should lonestar and I have babies or something now, is that how this works?
Dang, you're easily the coolest fogey I know of

Offline Kwyjibo

  • Posts: 2619
  • Gender: Male
Re: Women's March
« Reply #82 on: January 24, 2017, 01:42:27 AM »
My grandmother asked me why I marched so I really thought about it and started writing some reasons down. I may get quite a bit of flack for this - but here are my personal reasons for why I marched:
Because this morning on the radio while driving to work, the local radio host talked about the women’s marches as huge gaggles of women to hook up with, like they were prey to feast upon for a single man. “Just say you support Planned Parenthood and then you’ll be needing Planned Parenthood”.
Because I’m afraid to go for a run at night around my neighborhood – merely because I am a woman.
Because victims of rape and violence are still shamed and blamed for the crimes committed against them. “Why don’t you just leave?” “Were you wearing something short?”
Because those who commit those crimes are given inappropriate, short sentences compared to the life of pain and trauma for their victim.
Because it isn’t an issue of political correctness, it’s an issue of respect and common decency.
Because people called Michelle Obama an ape or a transvestite.
Because my Mother proved to me that a woman can be strong and smart.
Because people focus on what Hillary or Melania wore, instead of what they say or do.
Because women are told to “smile” – accept my resting bitch face as it is.
Because women are expected to wear makeup and shave body hair. When they don’t it is “disgusting” or “ugly”.
Because my Aunts deserve to marry each other.
Because I want the President to put his hand on the Constitution instead of the bible during his inauguration.
Because I do not think it is okay for our President to talk about women the way he has.
Because people still keep asking if me and my husband are going to have children when it is none of their business.
Because people call the signs left behind after the March trash without thinking of the perspective of the person who carried that sign.
Because people marginalize the word feminism as a negative term and call Feminist’s “man-hating lesbians”.
Because my husband supports me and is a feminist.
Because the conservative majority has already started the work to limit access for low income families to get access to health care at a singled-out non-profit doctor’s office.
Because the pay gap does exist.
Because I believe laws should not restrict what a woman can do with her body.
Because Fascism and Nationalism go hand and hand and the way I interpret our President comes off very authoritative.
Because our President wants to start a Muslim registry.
Because there are humans in this world suffering and we can/should help them by accepting them into our country.
Because voicing descent or objecting to the current political swing is Democracy.
Because both sides dehumanize and vilify the other and we can’t speak to one another.
Because people think they are more “American” than me for whatever reason.
Because I have a voice and I want it to be heard.

I wanted to stay out of the politics forum because a lot of what I read makes me mad/sad, but this post deserves all the thumb ups it can get. Very well done. :clap:

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 956
Re: Women's March
« Reply #83 on: January 24, 2017, 01:45:22 AM »
Harmony and chknptpie, you two are great. Thanks for marching (and thanks to anyone else here who did as well), and thanks for the awesome posts in this thread.

+1
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline DragonAttack

  • Posts: 939
Re: Women's March
« Reply #84 on: January 24, 2017, 02:43:13 AM »
chknptpie  :tup 

from me and my wife and her daughter

Offline Tick

  • Cleavage is a drug! Dracula is a junkie
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9077
  • Gender: Male
  • We will, we will, Trump you, boom boom, clap!
Re: Women's March
« Reply #85 on: January 24, 2017, 05:43:56 AM »
I'm just asking these marching woman to consider they ain't perfect either and have said and done stuff they wish they hadn't.

They aren't the President. Most people tend to hold the President to a slightly higher standard than your average sexually active adult female.
Well, 50% do in any given cycle.
Yup. Tick is dead on.  She's not your type.  Move on.   Tick is Obi Wan Kenobi


Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13611
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: Women's March
« Reply #86 on: January 24, 2017, 06:53:51 AM »
I'm just asking these marching woman to consider they ain't perfect either and have said and done stuff they wish they hadn't.

They aren't the President. Most people tend to hold the President to a slightly higher standard than your average sexually active adult female.
Well, 50% do in any given cycle.

Probably accurate.  And that's really sad.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7828
  • Gender: Male
Re: Women's March
« Reply #87 on: January 24, 2017, 07:53:56 AM »
He said "he could" not "he did"
No evidence says he actually grabbed a woman's vagina. He didn't give a confession, he made a boastful macho bullshit statement.
 We done?

Except for multiple women's testimonial evidence that he did just that.

Anyways, how do you know his statement was BS?  He bragged about it as if he had done it in the past multiple times:

Quote
Trump: Yeah, that’s her, with the gold. I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Unidentified voice: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

{crosstalk and chuckling}

No future tense there.  He used the present participle--stating that it was a practice he currently engages in.

He also gave specifics of how he went after a married woman:

Quote
Trump: I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and fuck her. She was married.

Unidentified voice:  That’s huge news there.

Trump: No, no. Nancy. No this was— And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’ I took her out furniture– I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

But that's HIS characterization, to appear "macho" in front of Billy Bush.  How do you know he wasn't caricaturizing his early time with, say, Marla?   You're a lawyer; you should know the difference between hard evidence and hearsay.   

And to the point about "consent", so what if she was married?  If two people decide that their conscience can handle their interaction, who are you to say it's bad?   You keep talking about all these things as if they are indicative of something more, but the SECOND someone says "well, homosexual sex is disgusting and immoral" you'd jump down their throats.   If two humans consent, what bidniss is it of yours, regardless of what the action is?   I've never consummated it, for various reasons, but I've been in situations where the my marital status (or that of the woman I was talking to) wasn't an issue AT ALL.  When I was married the first time, there was a married couple we spent a lot of time with, and as my marriage was failing, the other wife (basically my soon-to-be ex's best friend)said in so many words, "The ball's in your court, big boy.  Time and place."  It never happened, but nonetheless, no crime was committed there. 

I'm not a big braggart when it comes to my sexual history, but I'll cop to telling people that wasn't a virgin when I graduated high school (I was, though I didn't name any names) and I'll also cop to exaggerating the quality of my performance when I first did lose my virginity (it was a drunken sprawl, lasted all of about 90 seconds, and I'm pretty sure we passed out on each other after).  Does that make me a scumbag?  I guess some might think so.   I don't.  Is it illegal?  Nope.   Should it be?  Nope.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7828
  • Gender: Male
Re: Women's March
« Reply #88 on: January 24, 2017, 08:21:38 AM »
It was beautiful, and well-written.  But always remember that "feminism" and "dissent" are both alike in that they can take many forms.   

I happen to feel I'm a feminist too. I have a wife and two daughters, and I wish them every opportunity and success that they can achieve, and more importantly every opportunity and success that a MAN in the same position could achieve. No more, no less. 

But that doesn't change that we all sit in a particular context, a context where all our rights compete and sometimes compromises need to be made in terms of priorities.  I did not vote for Trump, and do not support many of his policies.   As much as the time is right for a woman to be President, it's not HILLARY'S time.  You want to be heard, that's noble and right.  And just and deserved. 

Just like you don't want to be recognized only for your bra size, or how those jeans look on you, so must we all contemplate all sides of the arguments, and understand that not everyone prioritizes things the same way.  I support everything you wrote, and I am in ever-increasing debt each day to make sure that my daughters have all the tools necessary to compete at whatever level they desire.  But I don't support the implications of that march, I don't support the lies and subterfuge that went into organizing that march, and I don't necessarily agree that Trump is to blame for this or is the only person standing in the way of what we might call progress.   We have the right to these discussions, and what rights we share as men and women is in large part because of the general prosperity of our country.  If we don't first focus on those things that lift all HUMANS, we can't even get to the things that lift all WOMEN, let alone the other special interests that we must look out for in one form or another.

I'm not sure if your post was meant for me or the other poster - but I'm confused by the bolded parts and hoping you could clarify and give some examples? I don't know where priorities comes into play. Hillary has nothing to do with this march. I don't know what implications you mean, or what lies and subterfuge you think went into organizing the  march. I don't think Trump is to blame or the only person causing problems - and I don't think the people who marched feel that way either.

Totally agreed.  What I saw yesterday and am still seeing today are a whole lot of (mostly) men going out of their way to turn the march into something it just wasn't.  It is just a ham-fisted way to keep women marginalized and we can all see right the fuck through it.

Next march is already planned.  April 15th.  Can't wait.

First let me say that not ALL reasoned dissent is "marginalizing women".  That you may be right in terms of overall intent, doesn't negate legitimate dialogue about the tactics of that intent.  I've already said, and I'm not going to keep saying (because it makes it seem hollow) that I am 100% for equality for women.  If you do the same job as a man in the next cube/office, you should get the same pay.  I want my daughters to be President.  Or CEO.   Or Director.  Or lead guitarist.  Or any of those roles that have been traditionally male.   But she has to earn it, not be "given" it because "well, history!".   I'm proud of my daughters, and I have spent a lot of time making sure that they never feel like "it's okay" for someone to take advantage of them.

As for your questions: Priorities; I think it's a mistake to assume that Trump's election is simply a rejection of women, or rejection of women's rights.   That wasn't the main issue of the election; it just wasn't.   Whether it should be is another question but it wasn't.  And I don't think you can assume that everyone went into that booth thinking "Mkay, who's the best candidate in terms of WOMEN'S RIGHTS?"   I'm sure some did.  I'm sure Hillary hoped more would have.  But it was clear from exit polls that it just wasn't the number one priority.   If the march was intended to MAKE it the number one priority, then so be it, but it wasn't.   You don't have to agree with MY priorities, either, but we both have to accept that not everyone ranks things the same way.  Me, personally, I am a liberal/libertarian when it comes to most social politics, but I also VOTE economic, because I believe that there is very little that can't be accomplished socially already; we're past the point of "freeing slaves", and at the point of "making it perfect".  An example: a close friend of mine in Philly has been "married" to his partner for about six or seven years now, well before it was "legal" in his state.  And it wasn't simple, but he prepared a will as if he was "married".  His partner gets everything.  They structure their tax returns in a way that mimics if they were "married".   His "DNR" is structured accordingly.  Is it fair?  Of course not. But for the time being, he is where he needs to be.   And he "votes" based on the issues he CAN'T take care of, like trade, terrorism, the economy, etc.  I don't know if he voted for Trump, but I know he voted for Romney. 

That doesn't make him insensitive to gay rights issues, or mean he's "marginalizing" homosexuals.

As to the lies and subterfuge; there was an article, an op-ed, posted a couple days ago by a woman who voted for Trump.  She had called for some information about whether she should march or not, and was told it was "bipartisan" and "not an anti-Trump rally".  But as she dug in and started to get involved, she felt very - using your word - "marginalized" and unwelcome, because it WAS more of an anti-Trump rally as opposed to the promised "bipartisan" celebration of women.  It was organized by a number of groups that are funded in large part by noted Democrat and fiercely anti-Trump activist George Soros.   For someone who spoke so eloquently about "being heard" and not being "marginalized", why would you support a movement that is doing just that to someone who nominally supports the movement, but just not in the same manner?   

Again, please do not lump me in the group of "deplorables" - males looking to marginalize you.  I very much liked your post, and I very much support any effort to confirm what should be obvious: that if we are going to "Make America Great Again", or whatever slogan you want to use, women have to be at the vanguard of that effort.   But please also understand that there is complexity to this issue that can't be reduced to "candidates" or "gender".   

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40213
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Women's March
« Reply #89 on: January 24, 2017, 08:43:29 AM »
It wasn't anti-Trump, but anti-attitude towards women and their rights held by the majority of Republican officeholders (and, by the fact that these people keep getting voted into office, by most Republicans).

It wasn't specifically Trump, but since he is the highest-ranking Republican, and also the most visible person who has said and done things that women object to, I can see where that misunderstanding can come from.

Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 83
  • Gender: Female
Re: Women's March
« Reply #90 on: January 24, 2017, 08:44:43 AM »
Please read the link I posted previously.  The op-ed of one woman you read does not negate the facts.  No matter how much you wish it to be so.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7828
  • Gender: Male
Re: Women's March
« Reply #91 on: January 24, 2017, 08:47:30 AM »
Please read the link I posted previously.  The op-ed of one woman you read does not negate the facts.  No matter how much you wish it to be so.

Please don't say that.  I've been civil and respectful to you this whole way.  I haven't negated your feelings, I haven't marginalized your beliefs, and in fact have taken great pains to affirm your beliefs.  So to say "No matter how much you wish it to be so" is just a snarky rejection, and indicates you really didn't read much of what I wrote.  Not fair, and I'm pretty sure, since that is EXACTLY what you are fighting against, that you wouldn't like it if someone did it to you.


Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 83
  • Gender: Female
Re: Women's March
« Reply #92 on: January 24, 2017, 08:49:38 AM »
Funny, I didn't feel very respected by either of your first 2 posts on this thread.

Have a nice day.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7828
  • Gender: Male
Re: Women's March
« Reply #93 on: January 24, 2017, 08:51:31 AM »
Funny, I didn't feel very respected by either of your first 2 posts on this thread.

Have a nice day.

Apparently, then, "respected" can only mean "I agree with you unequivocally, with no room for any dissent, or any civil disagreement".  Good luck with that.

This is the op-ed to which I referred:
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/01/20/billionaire-george-soros-has-ties-to-more-than-50-partners-of-the-womens-march-on-washington/


Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 956
Re: Women's March
« Reply #94 on: January 24, 2017, 09:19:42 AM »
But that's HIS characterization, to appear "macho" in front of Billy Bush.  How do you know he wasn't caricaturizing his early time with, say, Marla?   You're a lawyer; you should know the difference between hard evidence and hearsay.   

And to the point about "consent", so what if she was married?  If two people decide that their conscience can handle their interaction, who are you to say it's bad?   You keep talking about all these things as if they are indicative of something more, but the SECOND someone says "well, homosexual sex is disgusting and immoral" you'd jump down their throats.   If two humans consent, what bidniss is it of yours, regardless of what the action is?   I've never consummated it, for various reasons, but I've been in situations where the my marital status (or that of the woman I was talking to) wasn't an issue AT ALL.  When I was married the first time, there was a married couple we spent a lot of time with, and as my marriage was failing, the other wife (basically my soon-to-be ex's best friend)said in so many words, "The ball's in your court, big boy.  Time and place."  It never happened, but nonetheless, no crime was committed there. 

I'm not a big braggart when it comes to my sexual history, but I'll cop to telling people that wasn't a virgin when I graduated high school (I was, though I didn't name any names) and I'll also cop to exaggerating the quality of my performance when I first did lose my virginity (it was a drunken sprawl, lasted all of about 90 seconds, and I'm pretty sure we passed out on each other after).  Does that make me a scumbag?  I guess some might think so.   I don't.  Is it illegal?  Nope.   Should it be?  Nope.   

My point was more that you don't really have a leg to stand on if you're going to slut-shame women protesters that want funding for planned parenthood--all the while being a vocal supporter of Mr. Trump.  Not only has he publicly cheated on every wife he has had, he's bragged about non-consensual sexual assault, and about 10 women have accused himself of such.

I mean, you have to chose one or the other.  Either you're a sexual moralist or you're not.  Doing so only when it comes to women makes you a hypocrite.

I personally think consenting adults should have to do what they want.  But at the same time, marriage is a promise you make to someone else.  Cheating breaks that promise.  Sure marriages don't work out.  And sure some relationships are pretty much over in everything but name, and people start to go their separate ways before it's officially over.  But it makes it more complicated.  In Trump's story, the married woman didn't want to have sex.  He "moved on her like a bitch," but she didn't want to screw him.  That's a little different than trying to hook up with a single lady.

Would you want someone "moving on your wife like a bitch?"  You'd probably want to beat the crap out of him.
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2900
  • Gender: Female
Re: Women's March
« Reply #95 on: January 24, 2017, 10:26:22 AM »
Stadler – I appreciate the back and forth on this and I’m going to try and address your statements as thoroughly as possible.

First let me say that not ALL reasoned dissent is "marginalizing women".  That you may be right in terms of overall intent, doesn't negate legitimate dialogue about the tactics of that intent.  I've already said, and I'm not going to keep saying (because it makes it seem hollow) that I am 100% for equality for women.  If you do the same job as a man in the next cube/office, you should get the same pay.  I want my daughters to be President.  Or CEO.   Or Director.  Or lead guitarist.  Or any of those roles that have been traditionally male.   But she has to earn it, not be "given" it because "well, history!".   I'm proud of my daughters, and I have spent a lot of time making sure that they never feel like "it's okay" for someone to take advantage of them.
I don’t question or doubt your Feminist stance, I don’t think I said anything to that fact either and hope I didn’t come across that way. I’m glad you feel this way! The only comment I don’t understand is the “earn it”. How does a woman earn equality if it isn’t given?
As for your questions: Priorities; I think it's a mistake to assume that Trump's election is simply a rejection of women, or rejection of women's rights.   That wasn't the main issue of the election; it just wasn't.   Whether it should be is another question but it wasn't.  And I don't think you can assume that everyone went into that booth thinking "Mkay, who's the best candidate in terms of WOMEN'S RIGHTS?"   I'm sure some did.  I'm sure Hillary hoped more would have.  But it was clear from exit polls that it just wasn't the number one priority.   If the march was intended to MAKE it the number one priority, then so be it, but it wasn't.   You don't have to agree with MY priorities, either, but we both have to accept that not everyone ranks things the same way.  Me, personally, I am a liberal/libertarian when it comes to most social politics, but I also VOTE economic, because I believe that there is very little that can't be accomplished socially already; we're past the point of "freeing slaves", and at the point of "making it perfect".  An example: a close friend of mine in Philly has been "married" to his partner for about six or seven years now, well before it was "legal" in his state.  And it wasn't simple, but he prepared a will as if he was "married".  His partner gets everything.  They structure their tax returns in a way that mimics if they were "married".   His "DNR" is structured accordingly.  Is it fair?  Of course not. But for the time being, he is where he needs to be.   And he "votes" based on the issues he CAN'T take care of, like trade, terrorism, the economy, etc.  I don't know if he voted for Trump, but I know he voted for Romney. 
I don’t think the march or the people involved are generalizing Trump’s campaign to be about women’s rights. I don’t and wouldn’t expect people to vote based purely on women’s issues – that isn’t how democracy works. If you read my reasons for marching, I marched for more than just Women’s issues. I want to speculate that a lot of other marchers feel similar.
That doesn't make him insensitive to gay rights issues, or mean he's "marginalizing" homosexuals.
As to the lies and subterfuge; there was an article, an op-ed, posted a couple days ago by a woman who voted for Trump.  She had called for some information about whether she should march or not, and was told it was "bipartisan" and "not an anti-Trump rally".  But as she dug in and started to get involved, she felt very - using your word - "marginalized" and unwelcome, because it WAS more of an anti-Trump rally as opposed to the promised "bipartisan" celebration of women.  It was organized by a number of groups that are funded in large part by noted Democrat and fiercely anti-Trump activist George Soros.   For someone who spoke so eloquently about "being heard" and not being "marginalized", why would you support a movement that is doing just that to someone who nominally supports the movement, but just not in the same manner?   
I won’t lie – there was definitely a lot of Anti-Trump going on and I don’t mind it lol. He is the president and he is the man signing laws against women’s reproductive rights. He is going to be a big focus because of these reasons. The only way I see things getting better is to actually have discussions with the opposition – which will make us all uncomfortable.
I got a text from my conservative uncle after posting my reasons for marching to facebook. He asked if I had looked into the 3 women who helped to organize the march. I told him I did and I read about Perez and Puerto Rico. I read about the Islamic woman and how people may interpret some of her posts to be pro-sharia law. I told him that I understand that some members of the organization team may have a controversial past or ties, but that doesn’t impact me or my personal reasons for marching. They are 3 women in the sea of 2.8 million. There are going to be extreme opinions, but I don’t think my personal reasons are extreme. I also want to speculate that a lot of other marchers feel similar.

Again, please do not lump me in the group of "deplorables" - males looking to marginalize you.  I very much liked your post, and I very much support any effort to confirm what should be obvious: that if we are going to "Make America Great Again", or whatever slogan you want to use, women have to be at the vanguard of that effort.   But please also understand that there is complexity to this issue that can't be reduced to "candidates" or "gender".
I definitely don’t lump you in with the “deplorables”, I just think we are looking at the same object through different kaleidoscopes.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7828
  • Gender: Male
Re: Women's March
« Reply #96 on: January 24, 2017, 11:02:22 AM »
My point was more that you don't really have a leg to stand on if you're going to slut-shame women protesters that want funding for planned parenthood--all the while being a vocal supporter of Mr. Trump.  Not only has he publicly cheated on every wife he has had, he's bragged about non-consensual sexual assault, and about 10 women have accused himself of such.

I mean, you have to chose one or the other.  Either you're a sexual moralist or you're not.  Doing so only when it comes to women makes you a hypocrite.

Well, as usual you couch excellent points with irrelevant ones and/or non sequitors, but I agree with you.  The slut shaming is not a valid response to this. 

Quote
I personally think consenting adults should have to do what they want.  But at the same time, marriage is a promise you make to someone else.  Cheating breaks that promise.  Sure marriages don't work out.  And sure some relationships are pretty much over in everything but name, and people start to go their separate ways before it's officially over.  But it makes it more complicated.  In Trump's story, the married woman didn't want to have sex.  He "moved on her like a bitch," but she didn't want to screw him.  That's a little different than trying to hook up with a single lady.

Would you want someone "moving on your wife like a bitch?"  You'd probably want to beat the crap out of him.

I hear you, but you are picking the facts that match your argument and utterly ignoring the (more) facts that don't.   I got divorced a couple years ago.  I didn't cheat, but my wife did.  And at the end, I knew about it, and it was what it was.  I know other people (some post here) that only engage in relationships where they are free to pursue partners as their sex drive dictates.  You are laying your morals on someone else.  As to the part of "moving on her like a bitch" (I'm not even sure what that means, frankly) what's the difference?   I suppose you can articulate that me KNOWING you're married and hitting on you BECAUSE your married has it's own issues, but after my divorce I put it out there, and more than one woman said "not interested" (it's not at all important HOW MANY women, haha).  That's the game.  One sees someone they're attracted to, makes the offer (presumably in a safe, neutral way) and the other has the choice - free will - to accept or decline as the case may be (again, hopefully in a mature, adult way).   I - technically speaking - hit the dating pool before my divorce was final, and even after the divorce was final, my ex hadn't technically moved her stuff out at that point (though she was).  I had girls that weren't interested in involvement even with her crap in my apartment, and others that didn't care that the paperwork wasn't final yet.   BUT IT WAS OUR CHOICE, and YOU don't get to weigh in on that.   

I can remember after the first date with my now wife - it went amazingly - I went to my local bar to wind down, and one of the waitresses, who honestly probably felt sorry for me (she was a cute 22 year old, and I was the old guy that came in a lot and sat at the end of the bar about four nights a week), asked me how it went, and my first reaction was "I tapped the shit out of that!" and then laughed, because I did nothing of the sort.   She laughed and I told her about the date, and it was all very mature and adult, but the point is, there were things said that out of context I'm pretty sure my now wife wouldn't have approved of. 

I guess all this is to say, there's a LOT of judgment at work here, and it's just funny how the left is all about "SAFE SPACES" unless and until you're talking about a 'safe space' for someone that doesn't think like you do.  That isn't with the "program". 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7828
  • Gender: Male
Re: Women's March
« Reply #97 on: January 24, 2017, 11:23:35 AM »
I don’t question or doubt your Feminist stance, I don’t think I said anything to that fact either and hope I didn’t come across that way. I’m glad you feel this way! The only comment I don’t understand is the “earn it”. How does a woman earn equality if it isn’t given?

Not earn equality, per se.  I mean it more in the sense that "equal pay for equal work" should be a given but you still have to put in the work.  I want my girls to be who they are, as strong as they want to be, but I don't want them to be victims (and no, I don't at all think you or Harmony or women in general play victim or expect a hand out).  The statement was meant to be far more positive than it sounds.

Here's an example:  my daughter is at school, and she has to have a sport.  And they've made accommodations for those kids - male or female - that don't play "sports" and allow, for example, dance classes, in lieu of sport.   My daughter talked about playing ice hockey, but then said "well, I could join a hip hop club too", and I was like, what do you WANT to do?  Hockey.  Then DO it.  Don't take the easy way out, and don't expect life to come to you.  She did (having never skated in her life) and in a month, has worked herself up to second line on the JV team (there are three teams at her school).   

In typing this out, this has less to do with "feminism" than it does "humanism".  I just don't want her to assume that because she's a female, she has to settle. 

Quote
I don’t think the march or the people involved are generalizing Trump’s campaign to be about women’s rights. I don’t and wouldn’t expect people to vote based purely on women’s issues – that isn’t how democracy works. If you read my reasons for marching, I marched for more than just Women’s issues. I want to speculate that a lot of other marchers feel similar.

Okay, fair point, and I certainly believe you, but did you read that op-ed from the woman that wanted to be there, but because she didn't embrace the ENTIRE agenda didn't feel welcome?   Why then the overwhelmingly anti-Trump messaging?  (You may not be able to answer that, it's more rhetorical).  I mean I get it; I get that Trump has stirred up issues that touch on the feminist issues you're talking about (see my conversation with JoeBros. interspersed with our conversation) but it seems like the real point - equality for women - is being muddied with political things that dilute the message.    I want total equality for women (and that's not lip service; I really do; I'm not threatened by that at all, and in fact, I think we're better as a nation, as a company, as a family, when everyone can bring their best to the situation) but using statements taken out of context, and making an example of someone who really does stand for something that is far more powerful and universal than any one political issue, I don't think helps the cause.


Quote
I won’t lie – there was definitely a lot of Anti-Trump going on and I don’t mind it lol. He is the president and he is the man signing laws against women’s reproductive rights. He is going to be a big focus because of these reasons. The only way I see things getting better is to actually have discussions with the opposition – which will make us all uncomfortable.
I got a text from my conservative uncle after posting my reasons for marching to facebook. He asked if I had looked into the 3 women who helped to organize the march. I told him I did and I read about Perez and Puerto Rico. I read about the Islamic woman and how people may interpret some of her posts to be pro-sharia law. I told him that I understand that some members of the organization team may have a controversial past or ties, but that doesn’t impact me or my personal reasons for marching. They are 3 women in the sea of 2.8 million. There are going to be extreme opinions, but I don’t think my personal reasons are extreme. I also want to speculate that a lot of other marchers feel similar.

Well said.  I like that more even than I like your "list" and if people here really wanted to support you, they'd "+1" that paragraph.   I especially like the "uncomfortable" line; it WILL be uncomfortable.   But from that comes great things.   It SHOULDN'T be comfortable, because that means you're being bullshitted (and that applies to both sides).    I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm pretty sure we agree on the fundamentals here.  I didn't respond to you to get you to like Trump (I don't either, I didn't vote for him, but apparently I'm far more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt than most, well, almost everybody) I responded to start the discussion.    If it matters to you, I agree with most of what he's done so far; I disagree with his tweeting entirely, and I disagree with his reinstatement of the "Global Gag Rule"; I think the numbers are clear, and it will increase the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, and the number of illegal/dangerous abortions.   


Quote
I definitely don’t lump you in with the “deplorables”, I just think we are looking at the same object through different kaleidoscopes.

I appreciate that recognition, very much. Thank you.  Peace, and keep marching if you believe in it strongly enough (just keep your eyes wide open, and keep that recognition that there are a million different kaleidoscopes out there).

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 956
Re: Women's March
« Reply #98 on: January 24, 2017, 11:31:06 AM »
I know other people (some post here) that only engage in relationships where they are free to pursue partners as their sex drive dictates.  You are laying your morals on someone else.

But if they both agree to this kind of relationship in the first place, than nobody's really breaking any promises, are they?  IMO, that's perfectly fine.

That's different from being in a relationship that both people understand to be monogamous, and then someone cheats behind the other's back.  Without getting into moral judgments, I simply wanted to make the point that this involves breaking a pretty major promise.  To the point where adultery is still technically a crime in almost all states (although it generally doesn't rise to the level of felony).
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 83
  • Gender: Female
Re: Women's March
« Reply #99 on: January 24, 2017, 12:41:38 PM »
Funny, I didn't feel very respected by either of your first 2 posts on this thread.

Have a nice day.

Apparently, then, "respected" can only mean "I agree with you unequivocally, with no room for any dissent, or any civil disagreement".  Good luck with that.

This is the op-ed to which I referred:
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/01/20/billionaire-george-soros-has-ties-to-more-than-50-partners-of-the-womens-march-on-washington/

No, that isn't what "respect" means to me.  Hardly.  You may have forgotten some past exchanges we've had on this board.  But trust me, I have not.  Especially when this is more of the same here.

We can completely agree to disagree.  I'm fine with that.  Just don't couch it in flowery language, blow smoke up my skirt, and tell me about how much you respect me.  You have done almost nothing but negate my feelings and the feelings of many who marched (not that I shall speak for them) - you won't find any homogeneity among 2.8 million humans of that you can be sure.  More on that later.

And as for taking "great pains to affirm my beliefs" I don't need your "great pains".  When the premise of the discussion boils down to a "yes, but" then that is not an affirmation.

In your first post you brought up many things that chknptpie highlighted in her response to you.  Let me ask you more about those.

First, why bring up Hillary here?  She didn't plan or organize the march.  I'm not exactly sure about this but I don't believe she even attended the march at all.  Are you assuming that all of the women who marched last Saturday voted for Hillary?  If so, I would caution you against that belief.  I marched with a group of about 20 friends and family members.  I'd wager less than half voted for her.

You mention "lies and subterfuge" and indicate that 2.8 million women (and men) see Trump as the "only one" to blame.  I find this laughable.  You aren't paying attention.  Trump may have been on the minds of many marchers but he is by FAR not the "only one".  He just happens to be current lightening rod, for lack of a better phrase.  And so far, I'm not seeing anything in his behavior to indicate that will change any time soon.

As to "lies and subterfuge" those are very loaded words.  You want to back those up?  Who is lying?  Did you even read anything from the link I posted?

I'm sorry Ms. Noamani felt unwelcomed to march with us.  I don't have specific details about that other than her word for it - which you seem to believe as 100% gospel.  I guess it wouldn't be possible that she has any agenda or ax to grind.  Google searching her name brought up some interesting topics but my goal is not to put her on trial here, merely to point out she is one woman who felt disgruntled by our actions.  I'm certain there are others.  Had I the opportunity to talk with them individually I would have invited them along with my group.

You see, this group I was in...we all don't agree on a plethora of things:  Vaccines, stay-at-home moms, spanking kids, public breastfeeding, porn, GMOs, who we voted for in the election.  But that wasn't the point.  You speak of "implications of that march" what implications would you apply to me and my group?

This is where you and I broke down in our communication the last time.  You attempted to inform me that how I felt about my personal experience with religion was wrong.  Here is the take home message.  You don't get to tell me what my experience is.  You don't get to minimize it.  You don't get to explain it away.  You don't get to try and make me feel bad for having my experience.  It is my experience.

Last Saturday almost 3 million people marched for some of or all of the reasons that chknptpie listed.  We all don't have to agree on each one.  We all don't have to agree on what we will do going forward.  But for one, brief, shining moment we were together and supporting one another.  We were all ages, all colors, all shapes, all religions, all socioeconomic status.  It was peaceful.  And it was beautiful.  And nothing you or anyone else can say is going to change MY experience.  Because I won't let you.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Women's March
« Reply #100 on: January 24, 2017, 12:52:51 PM »
While we're on the subject of what people get to do and don't get to do, YOU don't get to use inflammatory language to incite conflict with others who are trying to have a discussion.  Either discuss the issues or don't.  Either is fine.  But if you don't tone down the inflammatory tone of your posts, I will make the decision for you.  This subforum is for civil discussion.  You choice of issues and your stance on those issues is completely up to you.  But how you discuss them needs to be within the confines of the forum rules, or you can discuss them somewhere else.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 83
  • Gender: Female
Re: Women's March
« Reply #101 on: January 24, 2017, 01:02:07 PM »
Just so I know exactly what you are talking about.  What "inflammatory language" are you referring to?  Is the f-bomb I dropped yesterday?  I wasn't aware swearing was not allowed.  If so, I apologize.

But if it wasn't that, then I'm not clear and am asking for clarification so I don't make the same mistake again.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Women's March
« Reply #102 on: January 24, 2017, 01:13:40 PM »
No, it's the fact that Stadler is trying to have a dialog about the subject, and rather than having a civil discussion, you are on the attack about (1) how he may have responded to you in the past, (2) how he is "negating your feelings," and (3) how he is trying to "change [your] experience."  #1 is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, so leave it at the door.  If he does something that crosses the line NOW, and I see it or become aware of it, I will deal with it as I am dealing with your post.  #2 and #3 and just picking a fight rather than discussing the issues.  Don't do that.  Again, you can take any position on any issue that you choose.  But so can he.  Attack the arguments, not the person or what you believe to be his motives.  I don't know why this bears repeating so often, since we all really SHOULD just get this from common sense, but: it isn't what you say; it's how you say it.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 83
  • Gender: Female
Re: Women's March
« Reply #103 on: January 24, 2017, 01:18:45 PM »
Ok.  Just to clarify though - he brought up the "negate your feelings" in his first post.  I used his words to expand on my reply.  I guess I should've quoted them but I don't have the hang of the multiple quote thing down.

I hear your point and hope, going forward, this will be applied to everyone equally and not just me.


Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Women's March
« Reply #104 on: January 24, 2017, 01:23:12 PM »
Of course.  When I respond to someone about their posting, it is only because they have posted something that is a problem.  The rules apply to everyone.  And the vast majority of what I have seen you post is fine, Harmony.  I only speak up when I need to.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."