Topic: Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists - page 28. (Read 80461 times)

Somehow every science fiction movie is a prophetic vision...

Cherry 2000 - Dating Scene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urS8GmwmeWQ

The written contract, signed by the girl, is the basis of my crude joke (against their crude rules).

PLUS - I am sure their crude rules will have various disclaimers LIKE:

"No touching or groping by government personnel in the performance of their duties, such as TSA personnel at airport check points, will be construed as prohibited behavior".

I'm not sure if this would work.

So basically, the only form of sex that isn't rape is prostitution, since there is verbal discussion of the price beforehand.

I don't know.  the outcome of this may be that women wind up having to sign documents with interesting outcomes.

Sorority has girls sign after initiation:

"All members of Fraternity XYZ are hereby given the right for a period of four years to......"

That genuinely is what it's going to come down to, what I find most interesting is all the religious groups and stuff out there ( people who partly support the feminists position of being totally against sex ) can't seem to attack the porn industry because of course any sexual conduct is filmed for everybody to see so they can't go bloody well claiming that it's rape if there's video evidence can they?

Men can't win against this kind of logic because it really is going to be a case of us having to sign legal documents with a woman before we can even touch her, I swear my life would be so much easier if I was gay but unfortunately I like boobs too much and I suspect it's the same for most straight guys lol.

I like environmentalists and feminists.

Looks like you need a video camera or a witness if you want to kiss someone.

A ban on sexual activity for deaf and mute people?
Or does this just put them on the permanent offender that prevents them from living anywhere outside a slum or having a job?

How does classifying most consensual sex as rape help rape victims?  As a lawyer who has handled rape and sexual harassment cases, I have no idea, but this radical result is what some want to happen in California.  In endorsing a bill in the California legislature that would require “affirmative consent” before sex can occur on campus, the editorial boards of the Sacramento and Fresno Bee and the Daily Californian advocated that sex be treated as “sexual assault” unless the participants discuss it “out loud” before sex, and “demonstrate they obtained verbal ‘affirmative consent’ before engaging in sexual activity.”  Never mind that consent to most sex is non-verbal, and that rape has historically been understood to be an act against someone’s will, rather than simply a non-violent act that they did not consent to in advance.  Perhaps in response to the bill, the University of California, on February 25, adopted a policy requiring affirmative consent not just to sex, but to every form of “physical sexual activity” engaged in. [...]

The affirmative-consent bill, Senate Bill 967, does not explicitly require verbal permission to demonstrate consent, although it warns that “relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding.”  But supporters of the bill are very clear about their desire to require verbal discussion or haggling prior to sex.  The Fresno Bee praised the bill because “it adopts in campus disciplinary cases the ‘affirmative consent standard,’ which means that ‘yes’ only means ‘yes’ if it is said out loud.”  The Daily Californian declared that “the proposal’s requirement that defendants in a sexual assault case demonstrate they obtained verbal ‘affirmative consent’ before engaging in sexual activity makes SB 967  a step in the right direction.”  Since most couples have engaged in sex without “verbal” consent, supporters of the bill are effectively redefining most people, and most happily-married couples, as rapists.  By demanding verbal discussion before sex, they are also meddling in people’s sex lives in a prurient fashion.

http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/03/09/california-activists-seek-redefine-quiet-consensual-sex-rape/#TVZrZH60qibb873V.99

Researchers from Oregon State University discovered that girls who play with Barbie dolls may see fewer career options for themselves than boys.

"Playing with Barbie has an effect on girls' ideas about their place in the world," said Aurora M. Sherman, an associate professor in the School of Psychological Science at OSU, via a press release. "It creates a limit on the sense of what's possible for their future. While it's not a massive effect, it is a measurable and statistically significant effect."
The study notes that Sherman's experiment was designed to better understand how Barbie might influence girl's career choices. As much of the past research involving Barbie has been primarily observational studies with children and toys in natural settings, this experiment worked with specific toy control variables in which the children involved were allowed to play with.
The experiment involved girls from the ages of 4 to 7 who were randomly assigned to play with one of three dolls: a fashion Barbie with dress and high-heeled shoes; a career Barbie with a doctor's coat and stethoscope; or a Mrs. Potato Head with accessories such as purses and shoes. Researchers used the Mrs. Potato Head doll as a neutral choice as it does not carry any sexualized characteristics, as Barbie does.
After a few minutes of plays, the girls were asked if they could do any of 10 occupations when they grew up. They were also asked if boys could do those jobs, half of which were traditionally male or female-dominated.
Findings showed that girls who played with the Barbie felt that they could do fewer jobs than those who played with the Mrs. Potato Head, who reported close to the same number of possible careers as the boys.
Girls who played with barbies dressed in different career outfits-including a doctor's uniform or party outfit-also showed no difference in choosing more career choices.
Researchers concluded that certain toys, including dolls or action figures, can influence a child's ideas regarding their future career path. However, more research is needed to better understand this complexity.



http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/13292/20140305/could-playing-with-barbies-limit-girls-career-choices-study.htm

I'm not convinced this is true. Most such groups do not advocate legislation to enforce their idea of a better culture, but rather merely try to convince as many people as possible - the very definition of a "bottom-up" change. Why do you think this will lead to totalitarianism?

Sure.  Because my very point was that you can't just pick and choose which areas to gripe about one sex being under represented.   

Logical fallacy called "cherry picking".

Can I bitch about men being severely underrepresented in the Swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated?

Please! Don't give them any ideas!

I don't hear anyone bitching about men being under represented in the ranks of sales clerks in women's bikini sales sections of department stores.

This. If you see some-one campaigning for skyscrapers to be shaped like vulvas instead of penises, or for all males to be sterilized don't think "dem feminists be crazy" - it's pretty much just that person who is crazy.

Most real feminists don't make tabloid headlines because they're too busy fighting mistreatment of women in the third world, or campaigning for better science and maths education for girls, or trying to change people's backward perceptions about parenthood and careers. They're continuing in a long tradition of fighting for equality and should be admired.

Feminist hero Gloria Steinem joined Joy Reid on her new MSNBC show The Reid Report Wednesday to do what she does best: shame men and insist we are fighting a “war on women.” This time, however, she came with “proof.”

The Women’s Media Center, founded by Steinem, Jane Fonda and Robin Morgan, recently released a report to determine just how bad it is for women in America. Entitled, “The Status of Women in the U.S. Media 2014,” the feminist findings concluded that females have made essentially no progress thanks to the male-dominated business.

The report begins by listing all the unacceptable statistics that can explain why women have “barely budged” and even “regressed” in the professional media world. For instance, two-thirds of newsroom staffers are men. One particular section discusses the makeup of sports journalism: “90 percent male, 90 percent white; sports editor ranks have far to go.”

Um, it’s sports. Can we not all agree this is kind of men’s forte? Is it really that surprising that more men would be pursuing careers in sports journalism than women?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2014/03/01/white-men-everyone-else-womens-media-centers-sexist-report-n1801539

lol....I wonder what Teddy would have thought of the current breed of them.

Someone's saying everyone hates environmentalists?  Put up your dukes.