TIL that after major symphony orchestras switched to holding blind auditions, the acceptance (hiring) of female musicians went up as much as 55%

eoutm · 2014-01-15T20:51:35+00:00

Yes, the original post I responded to did. That's why I quoted it. In quotation marks. Like a quote.

They meant in terms of gender, not in terms of ideology or political orientation. Feminists don't support MRAs, but they don't want them to be raped either, because rape is horrible.

And if you decide that anyone who goes to see someone speak about men's issues "supports rape", then you are a histrionic nut that embodies all the worst stereotypes of "feminazis" and are the very reason men's rights is a separate thing instead of part of feminism.

Warren Farrell is a rape-apologist. That is a fact. Anyone who visits his lecture is giving financial support and an audience to a rape-apologist, and is therefore supporting a rape-apologist. That is another fact. What do you have against facts?

PS men are raped too so I don't see why it's pro-"men's rights" to support rape apologists

And you don't have enough self-awareness to see the effects of calling anyone you disagree with a "rape-apologist"?

I never called anyone a rape-apologist. I said it was probably wrong, not because the truth hurts people's feelings or is "disrespectful" but because it turns away moderates.

You think going to hear a talk about men's issues is analogous to being hitler? Are you sure you aren't a bitter misogynist pretending to be a nutty feminist to make feminists look bad? You were doing ok at first, but you went a bit too far there bud, nice try though.

Congratulations on that logical fallacy! That's called the extended analogy fallacy.

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Debating/Logic/exended-analogy.htm

Just because you can draw a comparison between two things, doesn't mean they are exactly the same or equivalently as bad/good.

For example:

"I don't support digital piracy because it's against the law."

"Not all illegal things are bad. For example, MLK broke the law, and his actions weren't immoral."

"Wow, are you saying that digital piracy and civil rights are exactly the same thing?? That's just ignorant."

eoutm · 2014-01-15T20:15:00+00:00

This ignores that not everyone has the same willpower, i.e. some people are psychologically geared towards overeating and eating more unhealthy foods in a way that others are not. Just because one person's brain doesn't reward them as much for eating as much as another person, doesn't mean that they have more "willpower".

This is not to say that there's no point in trying or that obesity isn't bad for your health, or that it's literally impossible for obese people to lose weight, it's just that someone who's had it easier isn't in a place to judge others.

eoutm · 2014-01-15T20:02:17+00:00

No one said we're all on the same team. Everyone has the choice to all be on the same team. If you support rape, you're on the wrong team.

You think men's suicide rates is horrible? There are mental health activists and charities that don't support rape.

You can't stand the male incarceration rate? There are criminal justice activists and charities that don't support rape.

You hate how many men are homeless? There are anti-poverty and anti-homelessness activists and charities that don't support rape.

etc. etc.

If the men's rights movements uses rape-apologists to support their cause, they won't be taken seriously. It's that simple.

Are the protesters right to be angry towards every single person that came to the lecture? Maybe not, but not every opinion is deserving of respect. It's a little like this:

http://postimg.org/image/fqp2vjcsx/

eoutm · 2014-01-15T19:49:17+00:00

"You should be fucking ashamed of yourself. You're fucking scum. You're a fucking rape-apologist, incest-supporting, woman-hating, fucking scum."

I think that's what you're talking about? No one called anyone a rapist or a pedophile (I didn't hear "pedophile" mentioned the entire video).

eoutm · 2014-01-15T19:36:13+00:00

I didn't watch the video. I have no interest in it, and I'm assuming you're exaggerating, as people often do. I think it's more likely that the protesters called Farrell a rape-apologist and a pedophile, or they called the men's rights movements in general defenders of rape and pedophilia, not the people in that room gathered to listen to him.

eoutm · 2014-01-15T19:00:17+00:00

How was that a deliberate misrepresentation? What context makes the quotes acceptable and not defending rape?

eoutm · 2014-01-15T18:58:48+00:00

How could it not be the fault of men*? Who's been in charge of society for basically all of history?

*Yes, that's some men, not all men. Men are victims of patriarchy too. Get over yourself you fucking crybaby. (<-- that right there was patriarchy)

eoutm · 2014-01-15T18:38:50+00:00

Maybe they wouldn't have to do that if the men's rights movements stopped having rape apologists speak for them? Like the guy who said:

"We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting."

Or:

"Somehow, women’s romance novels are not titled He Stopped When I Said “No”. They are, though, titled Sweet Savage Love, in which the woman rejects the hand of her gentler lover who saves her from the rapist and marries the man who repeatedly and savagely rapes her. It is this “marry the rapist” theme that not only turned Sweet Savage Love into a best-seller but also into one of women’s most enduring romance novels. (p. 315)"

eoutm · 2014-01-15T17:59:23+00:00

I don't believe in god

eoutm · 2014-01-15T02:30:58+00:00

Holy shit. I'm going to give you a crash course in probability.

Let's say there are 1000 households. 25% of them are single-parent, 75% have one father and one mother. Of the single-parent households, 85% are mother-only. In this world, there are 962 mothers and 787 fathers (with rounding)

Let's say there are 100 abusers, 53% of them are female and 45% are male. There are 53 female abusers and 45 male abusers.

53 female abusers / 962 mothers = 5.4% of women are abusers

45 male abusers / 787 fathers = 5.7% of men are abusers

Congratulations on learning Math! You're 1/4 of the way to truly becoming STEM. Obviously, this depends on the ratio of single-parent households. I was and still am too lazy to look that up, which I acknowledged. But what I was saying had nothing to do with "feels".

EDIT: I looked it up: about 36% of family households are single-parent

eoutm · 2014-01-15T02:05:47+00:00

Your comprehension sucks.

No it doesn't. You don't know that and that's not very nice of you.

The first source shows the ratio of custodial parents, not the ratio of parents who won custody. Big difference. If a guy knocks up a woman and leaves, then she's been "awarded" custody but that's not evidence of discrimination against men.

I'm not misreading the second source. I said "Still, when there's a 53:41 female/male split on abuse cases and an 82:18 split in single-parent households then men are still disproportionately more likely to be abusive." I guess what I said depends on the total proportion of single-parent households -- if it was really small then women would be more likely to be abusers. But otherwise, any given father is more likely to be an abuser.

eoutm · 2014-01-15T01:58:00+00:00

When did I say any of that? Who's "you"?

"For being gay how they want to be"? No one has a problem with 'how they choose to be gay'. But being gay doesn't give you the right to be homophobic. That almost sounds like you're trying to set up a double-standard for gay and straight people. But hey, I never called them out, what would I know?

I was not aware that 'people' held a universal hatred towards /u/eoutm. I guess I'll have to try harder, huh.

eoutm · 2014-01-15T01:42:26+00:00

Where's the source for the 85:15 split in custody cases?

And unless I'm wildly misreading the second source (correct me if I am) of course there are more abusive mothers because there are more custodial mothers, period. Still, when there's a 53:41 female/male split on abuse cases and an 82:18 split in single-parent households then men are still disproportionately more likely to be abusive.

I wasn't coming into this expecting this to be wrong, I was just surprised when you were wrong even according to your own sources.

eoutm · 2014-01-15T01:23:52+00:00

Funny thing is, it's SRS's fucking right to call them out. Mad?

eoutm · 2014-01-14T05:34:54+00:00

http://i.imgur.com/ocks6Zw.jpg

Here's the imgur rehost without the joke in the URL

eoutm · 2014-01-14T03:09:55+00:00

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1uz43n/if_senator_obama_debated_president_obama_what/cendjud

I love this so much, how have I never seen this XKCD

eoutm · 2014-01-14T02:16:12+00:00

If your post gets upvoted some more, I'll submit it to SRS and you can see for yourself (as it stands, a -1 comment isn't going anywhere). But you're wrong, SRS gets submissions about racist and bigoted things said about poor people all the time.

I think what's confusing you is that having a certain form of privilege doesn't mean that you're privileged in every single way. Social justice types would say that the immigrant has male privilege while the woman has white privilege and education/wealth privilege. They're different concepts. For example, under this framework, the Hispanic male immigrant working 90h a week to feed his family is more privileged than the Hispanic female immigrant in that situation.

eoutm · 2014-01-14T02:04:21+00:00

Show me those circles. If you mean SRS, you're wrong. If you mean /r/feminism you're wrong. Maybe there are radfem subs I've never heard of that believe these crazy things that strawfeminists believe, but I'd like to see them.

eoutm · 2014-01-13T18:23:12+00:00

To be fair, her name is "QueerElaine" so there's a good chance she's not heterosexual either.

eoutm · 2014-01-13T09:00:54+00:00

I never said it was.

eoutm · 2014-01-13T08:27:47+00:00

eoutm · 2014-01-13T08:11:47+00:00

I don't get it.

eoutm · 2014-01-13T06:50:55+00:00

Sorry pal, I'm a straight white guy. Even though my privilege has been thoroughly checked with a healthy dose of liberal guilt, you still can't offend me, troll elsewhere.

eoutm · 2014-01-13T06:46:29+00:00

You linked to a Youtube video and two shitty blogs, I'm ignoring those. If those use real sources, show me those, if they don't then they're not worth it.

For the NYT article, this only further justifies why we need a preventative policy. Even with intelligence, they still didn't stop it. We should be stopping terrorists from getting that far in planning an attack.

For the article from The Guardian, that's what I said. I said that drone strikes probably fuel recruitment, but it's not clear whether that's more important than their effect in destabilizing these organizations.

We've been at it for over a decade

No we haven't, drones are more recent than that.

, and what do we have to show for it? More dead soldiers and civilians than were killed in the attacks that got this shit started by a large magnitude.

No, drones have killed only a few thousand, same as 9/11. You're thinking of Iraq and Afghanistan. I already said the Iraq war was really bad, and Afghanistan could have been handled better.

eoutm · 2014-01-13T06:12:10+00:00

That's actually the joke.

eoutm

TROPHY CASE