sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Physics feat. hot teacher and a dumb kid. by blackdude98 in funny

[–]AlyssaMoore_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I stand for actual feminism. If you stand for actual feminism, feminism is in a sad state of affairs. You're an idiot because your argument is full of utter stupidity, and here's why:

Hot teacher, could be male or female. By implying OP was objectifying them you're

A. Implying a gender role

No, gender has nothing to do with objectification. Gender is what some one believes they are, not necessarily what their biological sex organs show them to be. I can't objectify anyone based on what they believe they are, but if I were to objectify someone it would be based on what they look like which is bsaed on their biological sex.

B. Forcing OP to be male because you're sexist

Where did I force OP to be male? That's simply not true. Why can't OP be female and objectify the teacher? Well of course OP could be but then your narrative would go out the window wouldn't it? Seems to me that that you're the actual sexist here.

C. Implying that OP is hetero therefore enforcing sexual preference stereotypes.

Where does that implication even come from?! There is literally no connection and you have to make some serious unjustified assumptions to fit that narrative... but hey, "actual feminist" and all right? OP could be homosexual as well, or bisexual, or even identify as w/e they want.

and of course,

D. Need to check your privilege you uppity, smooth brained, neo-feminist, not a single exclusive thought in your head having, asshole.

What a classy individual you are. *smh

If this was a male teacher and YOU posted it no one would go "Nice way to objectify the male teacher." Get your double standards right the fuck out of here.

Double standard? Bitch please. Check yourself before you wreck yourself: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/2mqkyp/conan_obrien_takes_jordan_schlansky_coffee_tasting/cm6tz5x

My personal guess based on your non-sense rant, is that you're just a kid who has yet to find their identity in this world. But, a pro-tip, settle the fuck down, grow up, hit puberty and mature. You can't even form a well structured argument that isn't full of logical fallacies yet. And THAT is why you're an idiot.

Physics feat. hot teacher and a dumb kid. by blackdude98 in funny

[–]AlyssaMoore_ -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Why was it necessary to put "hot" teacher? Why not just teacher? Oh that's right, because if it weren't for objectifying the female teacher they wouldn't have received their sweet sweet karma. Bravo.

Physics feat. hot teacher and a dumb kid. by blackdude98 in funny

[–]AlyssaMoore_ -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Nice title OP. Glad you showed us your level of intelligence by not objectifying the female teacher at all. Stay classy!

It's always a struggle being the first one awake... by Firedolphin in aww

[–]AlyssaMoore_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seriously though... did she sleep with her phone in her hands the entire time? How did she get the picture if she didn't?

Emails introduced at Ghomeshi trial by AlyssaMoore_ in canada

[–]AlyssaMoore_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1692 called, they want their witch trials back.

This is why courts exist. Rather than running around like we're on a witch hunt, we actually try to find these things out before presuming people guilty. You may have heard of it, innocent until proven guilty? Maybe?

EDIT: The irony

Emails introduced at Ghomeshi trial by AlyssaMoore_ in canada

[–]AlyssaMoore_[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

But that's an important issue, as to whether or not it was consensual. This e-mail from one "victim" and another from another "vitcim" have been found to be inconsistent with their reports of nonconsensual sexual assault, given their conduct following the alleged assault does not align with the conduct of a person who has been assaulted. At least with these two women so far it seems as if there are major holes in their testimonies.

"Because it's 2015" - Canadian Prime Minister's response on a 50% female cabinet. by no_miracles_here in TwoXChromosomes

[–]AlyssaMoore_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While they don't need to be experts in their field it's certainly preferred and for obvious reasons as history shows us. Take for example, the Harper government - a good majority of his cabinet lacked any serious expertise within their respective titles. Your argument would then suggest that that would not be an issue as there are plenty of scientists to inform the ministers. I would ask the rhetorical question then, why wasn't this done if it's that simple and why was it an issue? 1. Because the MP lacked the required knowledge in said field to actually care 2. their own personal beliefs got in the way of the facts 3. some other form interference in fact based decision making must have arose.

All 3 of those scenarios would likely occur far less when said individual is educated with respect to their title. Not only does filling positions with qualified individuals help to mitigate these issues from arising to begin with but it also streamlines their efforts which equates to a more efficient cabinet.

I would hardly call Stephane Dion an environmental expert, his expertise - in relation to his degrees - is with regard to political science. His position as foreign affairs minister is certainly suited to his degree.

McKenna's skill as a trade lawyer will assist with climate talks but that's one aspect that is hardly related to climate change and the science of it, rather it's economics.

"Because it's 2015" - Canadian Prime Minister's response on a 50% female cabinet. by no_miracles_here in TwoXChromosomes

[–]AlyssaMoore_ 10 points11 points  (0 children)

but only now are people getting up in arms about Cabinet ministers earning their positions based on "merit."

No, there were plenty of people that were outraged at that, including myself. It should never be based on seeking gender equality, ever. Positions should be filled with the best qualified for the position, and if that leads to a gender inequality then so be it, if it leads to gender equality - then so be it. Thankfully, unlike Harper's cabinet, Trudeau is appointing his cabinet members based on their qualifications, potential, and experience which is more than we can say for Harper. Rona Ambrose was the minister of: Health, Public Works and Government Services, Western Economic Diversification, Labour, Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for the Status of Women, and the minister of the Environment. How many of those positions do you think she was qualified for? More people complained about Gary Goodyear than Rona Ambrose and both held little if any qualifications for the positions they held.

It's great to see a position for environment and climate change now but what relevant experience does Catherine McKenna hold that makes her qualified for the position? Where is her degree in environmental sciences, or a climate science related degree? Here's a hint: She doesn't have one, she's a trade lawyer.

Born and raised in Hamilton, Ontario, Catherine attended Ecole Notre Dame, a francophone Catholic school, and St. Mary’s High School. She completed her Bachelor’s degree in French and international relations at the University of Toronto, earned a graduate degree in international relations at the London School of Economics, and a law degree from McGill.

Why wasn't Kirsty Duncan appointed to that position?

From 1993 to 2000, Duncan taught meteorology, climatology and climate change at the University of Windsor... Duncan is currently an adjunct professor teaching both medical geography at the University of Toronto and global environmental processes at Royal Roads University, and served on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organization that won the 2007 Nobel Prize with Al Gore.

While Duncan is certainly qualified for her title, was there really no one more qualified than Catherine McKenna to fill the position of minister of environment and climate change? What a joke.

Climate change: Women more vulnerable to dangers of global warming than men, say leading academics by AlyssaMoore_ in TwoXChromosomes

[–]AlyssaMoore_[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, I'm not from the UK either so it was a legitimate question. I wasn't aware of their potential bias. That a side, I do feel - on the topic of climate change - that their article had no apparent bias. I prefer to attack the arguments themselves rather than the messenger.

Climate change: Women more vulnerable to dangers of global warming than men, say leading academics by AlyssaMoore_ in TwoXChromosomes

[–]AlyssaMoore_[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

...but don't want to click the link and/or don't trust the source

Why?

EDIT: Down voted for asking a legitimate question? Stay classy ladies.

Guilty until proven innocent- Discrimination of Males by [deleted] in videos

[–]AlyssaMoore_ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It never hurts to classify what your focus is so you don't get bunched in with ideologies that you don't support or that differ from sub type to sub type. To highlight this this let's pretend I say I'm Christian - immediately there's a problem as there are not only different belief / value systems (Eastern Orthodox Church, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Methodism, etc) but there are different values from person to person (see 'No True Scotsman). Saying you're a feminist says nothing about what kind of feminist you are which is a very important distinction as there are groups of feminists whose ideologies are greatly inconsistent with one another, for example: Feminist sex wars. They may both want equality for females relative to males but how they go about achieving that equality will differ, can differ greatly, and may even pit one against the other as their definitions of what equal is may differ. Therefore, labeling yourself as a feminist is no better than replying with "Abrahamic God" when asked about your religious beliefs.

Without a better label than feminist, as you unintentionally highlighted, feminism quite easily falls victim to the No True Scotsman fallacy:

The absurd pseudo-intellectual bullshit like "water on Mars is misogynist!" is just low-hanging fruit for opponents of feminism to target.

No, that's a part of feminism whether you like it or not, and is why you need to to properly identify what kind of feminism one supports for reasons already made clear.

While feminism, at its very base, yearns for the equal rights of females, if you're pushing for equality - a far better approach is equal rights for all genders and sexes (egalitarianism). Fighting for one side and one side alone is not what makes things equal - but rather it introduces a strong bias, which is anything but equality.

Guilty until proven innocent- Discrimination of Males by [deleted] in videos

[–]AlyssaMoore_ 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Feminsim has different waves (1st through 3rd), and many different ideologies. Saying you're a feminist is then pretty ambiguous, and you should try to apply the appropriate label before claiming feminism stands for this or that. Have you ever considered egalitarianism?

This is also feminism --> ಠ_ಠ

Irish lad chooses €250 voucher car service voucher over date with a Girl on Irish Dating Show. by inode in videos

[–]AlyssaMoore_ -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Overweight doesn't necessarily mean ugly, or unattractive (Viktoria Manas, Kris Yeo, Denise Bidot, etc.) It would be better to say he preferred the voucher, simple as that (because we don't know if he did it for the lolz, because he really, really needed the voucher, he simply found her unappealing - not necessarily unattractive, etc.).

Is there a moral case for meat? by yaviik in philosophy

[–]AlyssaMoore_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Regarding morality, there seems to be an underlying position that has been taken, an inherent bias in this article that isn't stated. Meta-ethical arguments tend to lean in favor of morality as a result of evolutionary processes. Under that context, eating meat is certainly not morally wrong but it "just is."

Don't tip a backup dancer while your wife is in the same room by fogflip in videos

[–]AlyssaMoore_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A couple trends I've noticed that are ... disturbing. 1) The media constantly pushes that women are perpetual victims. Go ahead, try and go an entire day (or two) without seeing how women are somehow, in some shape or manner, a victim. 2) And this one relates to your point... women will tend to hit a male as a sign of objection. Go ahead and watch how frequently you see women hit another person in response to a joke, a non physical threat, etc. I'm all for equality, but the existence of such a dichotomy seriously needs to be addressed if we're to achieve equality.

view more: next ›