I stand corrected :blush: I don't follow soccer either.
OK, $6 to 30 grand means semi-pro to me. They can't support themselves on that.

Bruce covered most of my response. No, technically they are not pros although there is a purse that is paid out to the winner.
Yes, men have been referred to in a similar manner - no not professional athletes though.

Still not offended either way, but apparently that's because of my gender. Whatever.

Offended is too strong a word, for me. More like just eyeroll-inducing. I honestly think the solution is to talk about men's personal lives more, not women's less.

That's been happening more with pro athletes lately... in courtrooms.;)

Agreed, with amendment (although I know that's a whole 'nother can of worms).

Those Brits had to be keep in line, prison or penal servitude. :eek:

President Eisenhower's diary says he liked the ladies.

.

Plz to send that to me as a HUGE canvas.
Love it.
'cept WW would need some of the anti-monkey-butt powder you sent me (and I STILL use when it's hot) to prevent chafing in that costume

Like it or not if women want to achieve equality they will have to win the support of a lot of the men. This stuff doesn't help.

Can you guess the gender of this robot ...



oxB's blurb in the above post might give a clue..

Attachment 52439

Here we have probably the original, Tits or GTFO, from 1904.
http://cellar.org/2015/titsorgtfo.jpg

What a sick(and probably greedy) mind, to dump this bullshit on women at the end of the Victorian era.

The shoe on ther other foot.
http://cellar.org/2015/pub staff.jpg

link

Say what you will, you know that at least one of them has occasionally gone "true scotman" (And I am betting it's the one in the middle)

Jackie Fox of The Runaways tells how she was raped in front of the band and crew. It's a sad read but goes into how it haunted her for the rest of her life, even though she went back to school, became a very successful lawyer. Scroll down at the link.

No woman, no drive. :rolleyes:

Oh Christ, this is sick.
And it gets sicker.

A reply.

Progress from IBM.

My one and only experience of an 'open relationship' was during my first year with J. I'd drifted into his orbit - a world of far left politics, theatre folk and activists - and desperately did not want to be uncool about it.

It didn't last very long. Roughly until I exercised my side of the open relationship* at which point the idea seemed to lose its lustre for J.

*a horrible experience on a beach in Skegness - with an activist and wannabe people's poet at the Socialist Workers Party annual convention.

A lesson for not only women, but voters who feel powerless. If you want it, you can get it.

Golda Meir was elected prime minister of Israel in 1969, Indira Gandhi in 1966... Unless they specifically mean "the first leader who's elected office is called a presidency", which is a pretty lame loophole, I am not sure how they came up with that one.

link

Just because the statement does meet your criteria doesn't make it a loophole, it means you didn't read for content.:p:

...That says that both Bolivia and Argentina call their head of state office the presidency and had women fulfilling those roles before Iceland... wouldn't that meant that even with that added arbitrary criteria that meme still got it wrong?

Does "democratically elected" ring a bell.

So not the first democratically elected female head of state...
Not the first female head of state who's position is called a presidency...

This seems to be

Might as well say she wsa the first female Forseti ever - since no prior female president was called that in icelandic... Hell golda meir was the first female rosh memshala...

And there's a good chance they all were the first female elected leaders who did so while owning a particular breed of dogs while driving a particular type of car and almost certainly the first female presidents to have their great aunt from their mother's side live in whichever particular address she happened to have lived in...

At what point does the impression the title "first woman president" seems to try to imprint is kind of getting lost?

Your right to not understand is constitutionally protected. Run with it.

*whose*

As is yours: I understand they wanted to highlight the significance of the victory and saying she was the first was helpful towards that... I am saying the reason it was helpful in highlighting the significance of the victory is by creating a false impression while using a technically correct statement. Contrast with a scenario where the author would assume most if the audience was knowledgeable about history, and the highlight no longer has any effect.

You own your false impressions.

Yes and no.
Yes - you can say it's people's fault for not knowing the history of women leaders throughout the world.
No - that doesn't exempt the meme author from an attempt to deceive people reading it by utilizing that ignorance.

People don't have a problem, you have a problem. You misunderstood what was being said and now you're trying to shift the blame like a fucking lawyer... or pedant.
Now you can have the last word.

It's just a meme why are you been so defensive about it?

edit: nvm. I just realized it was locally uploaded. It was your lame-deception or bad fact checking I was been critical of. Now it makes sense.

Here's a gender checkpoint for you from the news. There's not a lot of equality though.
High school grad strikes back at dress code with amazing yearbook quote
Pictures and an interview at the link. Worthwhile.

Midriff? That slut. :lol2:

Heh. The lass has style.

Penetrating job markets.

Never underestimate the ladies.

http://cellar.org/2015/ladypower.gif

I wonder why the motorcycle disappears during that loop?

Oh, and in high school, I would totally have been distracted by some girl's midriff. If she was in my class, I'd be staring at her through the whole class, and probably be trying to hide a boner under my notebook. You can't get much hornier than a high school boy.

Smart girl.

I've wondered about that...

When a man speaks, we do pay attention.. To his physique, height, posture, tone of voice, dominant body language... regardless of our own gender.

To whichever extent we are willing to listen to our instincts, "intuition" and first impression, we will be as much of a factor in how we take what he has to say as the content of his words, more so if we include more general factors like humor, likability, how much we relate to him, and other factors that are more gender neutral, it all melds together, and we don't make any fuss about it. We fully accept that certain elements of masculinity - of his sexuality - are dominant variables within the composite emotion of how charming we find a man and how our subconscious will guide us to take his words. What's the problem with that being true for both genders?

I think the "lipstick feminism" side of that debate gets my vote.

I spent much of my high school time quietly lusting after our English teacher. When he was talking, I really wasn't taking in the detail of what he was saying.

I knew plenty of girls who were completely led by their hormones and totally distracted by the presence of a 'hot' guy in class.

Learning to wrench your mind away from those distractions and focus on the task at hand is all part of growing up. Placing the onus on the girls to not be distracting - rather than on the boys to not be distracted is unfair and silly. For you the sight of a bare midriff may have been distracting - in some cultures the sight of a bare ankle or calf would have the same impact. The formal style of school skirt with ankle socks would be unthinkable past the age of 10.

And for individual boys different things might be a distraction - the nape of a girl's neck, the back of a knee, the slight suggestion of breasts under a demure blouse...


Where the line is drawn seems arbitrary.

It always boils down to girls having to cover up and not allow their body shape or surface to show. I know some girls have got into trouble for wearing form-fitting jogging pants - no skin on show, but the shape of their legs and butt is apparently enough to render them a distraction to the boys.

Do we "learn" to wrench our minds away from distraction, though? Or do we simply grow up and it becomes easier with maturity? Give a 12-year-old easy access to drugs and there's a decent shot he'll take them, because his ability to envision the future and make rational decisions based on outcomes is not fully developed yet. Give a 21-year-old easy access to those same temptations, and he is far less likely to take them, even if he didn't spend his youth learning the hard way to say no all the time. All the studies show that if you can only delay the age of decision--not try to affect it or persuade in any way, only delay it by as many years toward adulthood as you can--the outcomes of those decisions will be far better.

It's not that females should always cover up. It's that children of both genders are simply not adults yet, and we shouldn't treat either of them as such.

I agree - but that generally translates to an emphasis on modesty and physical appearance for girls as it relates to how boys might see them and react. Boys are supposed to look presentable and that's about it.

Meanwhile boys have to play flag or touch football, can't wrestle in class even if both kids are having fun and no one is getting hurt, and generally must behave in a more restrained manner because there are females in the building (both child and adult, ironically) who are made uncomfortable by physicality even when it doesn't touch them. Just because the compromises are different doesn't mean there aren't compromises on both sides.

Stories like this abound. I haven't heard much objection to the idea of a dress codeo one is lobbying for the right to wear a toga or a swim suit or anything else ridiculous. What all the objections seem to be about are the sexual distraction a given outfit represents. As glatt points out and as I'm sure we've all experienced, sexual distraction is in the eye (or pants) of the beholder. It doesn't *have* to be especially revealing or exposing.

Reading through these articles I find one other thing common and that is the way the adults handle the situation is awful. The sexual shaming directed at these girls is horrible. It's not an exaggeration to see that comments like "your bare shoulder/curvy thigh/exposed neck/ankle/does it really matter? is provocative and invites unwelcome attention" is just more support of the rape culture. "She was asking for it, just look at that midriff." What. Bullshit.

When my daughter chooses her outfit, there's nothing in her closet that justifies sexual assault. And the same goes for my sons--what a woman in their field of view is wearing is in no way an excuse for any improper behavior on their part. Period. Listen to some of these idiot adult authorities (and their deputized parents/grandparents/meddling bystanders).

“Have y’all ever seen any ‘skanks’ around this school…I don’t want to see anyone’s ass hanging out of their shorts.”
For fuck's sake.

#CropTopDay
Lots of good discussion in the comments on this article.

Teen Girl Kicked Out Of Prom So Her Dress Wouldn’t Lead Boys To ‘Think Impure Thoughts’
More slut-shaming dress code examples.

No tight pants.

No yoga pants.

No curvature of breasts.

Kindergartner's skirt too short one week, not the other.

Degrading clothing inspections bordering on sexual harassment.

It is ridiculous. The sad thing is that this *could be* a golden opportunity, a teachable moment for all, including the person wearing the clothing about how to handle "distracting situations", but alas. No. I think it'll be alright, the stories we hear about are the epic fuckups by the administrators and parents; the successful outcomes just don't make the news, but I know they're out there. But some of these administrators need a different job.

That's a good point Clod - but, I think BigV nails what it is I find objectionable about the way that some schools approach this issue.

I personally would take issue about not been able to go to school in Toga, but that's just me... and the fact me and the rest of my HS geek squad used to organize the local LARP scene...

Unfortunately... I looked up the dress code of the countries ranked at the top of student performance, admittedly hoping to see no correlation at all and coming back here with definite proof that the whole thing's bullshit, and... It did not give me what I was hoping for. Kind of the opposite:


1. China
2. Singapore
3. Japan
4. South Korea

5. New Zealand
:-/

I have no problem with school uniforms. It's pretty much the norm here for secondary, and even some primary schools.

Isn't that like... The most extreme of all dress codes?

My problem isn't with dress codes - my problem is that even in an environment without a formal uniform, the dress codes for girls are often partly founded on what may or may not distract the boys. The emphasis in how schoolgirls' clothing is policed by the school is, very often, on ideas of immorality and sexual immodesty - and in the school's communication of that the message given to the girls is clear: you will dress modestly so that your inherent and unavoidable sexual presence is not a distraction to male students

I have far less of a problem with a dress code founded on, and communicated as, maintaining a kind of professional standard.

I see that, so it's not so much the problem with their action but the intent and reasoning behind it....

I think I agree that it's dumb and arbitrary and set in an accumilation of traditional mindset, I just don't see how this is an exception to any other aspect of cultural dress codes, anywhere. From the western obsession with bras to African nudist tribes that tie up up penises so they won't show when they are erect qualifies for this. It's the process from which we generate dress codes... Culturally. It's always going to be silly and arbitrary and set in traditions with complete disregard to whether they make much sense.

The question of whether those should be enforced in general (Legally) or in small scale (Such as schools) is another one altogether, and my personal answer is "no" mixed with "I should be able to sue governments that measure up my toga length for sexual harassment, my eyes are up here!". But, while I don't know about you, I am not expecting a libertarian utopia any time soon...

Slightly relevant brain dump of an argument I had in my head and have no real context to get it out... If anyone here would like to pretend you've invoked Lewis's law for me to address, feel free to do so. Now...

i think the problem with Lewis's law is that the exact same principle would apply from the perspective of any movement which feels like it is fighting for a cause demanding a single mindset.
That is, if you are a x, and If someone speaks positively of x, it will naturally justify it, and if someone criticizes, disagrees or speaks about x negatively in anyway, it shows you have resistance against what you believe x stands for and thus x is justified in fighting off that resistance, because part of the cause is getting everyone else to agree with you. and given how positive your movement clearly is, or otherwise you wouldn't be in it, speaking about it neutrally is in itself negative because it demonstrates the speaker doesn't acknowledge how positive it truly is.
This will seem like that from the perspective of any movement: Libertarian and communists, the ancient Roman supporter of the emperors and those who fought to restore the senate, democrats, republicans, fundamentalists, militant atheists, pro-palestinians, pro-Israeli, feminists, MRA... It would even apply to arguments within feminist factions, comments made by individualist feminists will justify the cause of collectivist feminists and vise versa. All would feel that the criticism or resistance to their cause justifies the importance of their cause, by the simple act of showing that their cause does not have as much support and agreement as they would like it to have.
Whichever movement you agree with and might feel that said principle applies, you would not be able to explain why it wouldn't equally apply to any movement that resists yours.
And yet, you may have met plenty people on every movement within those who are open to criticism and don't invoke any direct equivalent of Lewis's law. The main mistake here is simple: approaching the argument from the assumption that your movement is right so dogmatically as to assume that regardless of it's content any criticism about your beliefs must be invalid and thus prove that not enough people understand how valid your movement truly is.
And yet, now you can be true to Lewis's 's law and dismiss this all, because in criticizing feminists for invoking Lewis's law, and invoking the suggestion that doing so is dogmatic and close minded, it clearly justifies the need to fight for feminism until people finally understand. ...Except that in doing this, you do not only justify the opposition to feminism on the simple act of resisting them despite the content of your disagreement, rather, you justify it because of it, reinforcing the stereotype of close minded militant fanaticism by actually been true to it, and in doing so, you are making yourself feel better about the cause of the movement at the cost of actual harm for the cause of the movement. Remember, it requires to assume that your movement is already correct in order to identify with the notion that all critique towards it is proof for it's misunderstanding. It acts to increase the loyalty of those already believing in it while alienating not just those on the other side but anyone who might be on the fence, not yet knowing whether what they'll think will be in terms with what the movement believes in and thus not being unseasonable to first asses how you relate to people who question you before they can be new recruits with new questions.

(This is particularly interesting in the case of gender politics because when almost everyone says they are fighting for equality but disagrees on the framework in which it is defined, there is a very fine line between the opposite side and sitting on the fence, as personally I know from experience).

Feminism related brain dump #2....

Does anyone else have the sense that the most accurate elements within all those ideologies is the critique they give each other?

The feminists & MGTOW are right - MRA truly do make a reactionist group that is unified by their fight against feminism rather then anything else. You can't argue for equal father's rights and then argue that we should go back to the providers-husbands and housewives, as that is the very dynamic that justifies keeping the father for financials support and giving the mother the major care taking time in the first place. Arguing against feminism matters very little when they can't seem to be able to choose the agenda they want to argue for, and yes, this means they need to loose some support, either loosing the neocons or the progressives, but it also means they get to actually do something beyond bickering.

The feminists and MRA are right - you can't read an MGTOW blog post anywhere without misogyny spilling out on your shoes, unlike the MRA they are clearly not above excluding women from supporting them, and they are destined to go the same way as 2nd wave feminist lesbian separatism - you can only grow your movement so much when you require people to counter their basic physical and emotional needs and you are very unlikely to grow over time at all if you don't apply the most ancient meme transfer mechanism of all - raising children. And no, a small group of hermits tying up their dicks in a chastity belt in protest isn't going to convince anyone of anything.

The MRA & MGTOW are right about most of what they have to say about feminism, which I would expend upon except that it would have to include everything they every said about anything since they had people who can speak since they don''t actually say things other then attacking feminism, so instead I'll point at what IMO is the most notable exception - their historical reevaluation of 1st wave feminism on the inherently unverifiable basis of "it would have happened anyway". The old way was a rotten deal for everyone involved, both men and women, and we don't get to pretend feminist movement didn't bring that change about on the basis of "If they wouldn't someone else would" - credit doesn't work like that, and that someone else wasn't fast enough.

Shift the blame...

So it's all the fault of Indian cooking!

So true. Even girls who were objectively a solid four became eights or nines when the hormone coefficient was figured in.

I look back at my HS yearbook photos and think "How did I think she was hot?"

I'll trade this ability: http://go-girl.com/

For the ability to get laid whenever I want. Then we'd be equal.

See, if a girl was exposing her midriff you'd be all goo-goo over her, and if she was wearing a burka you'd still be belly dancing her in your head.

I had a 6 ft blond teacher, fresh out of college, my first year in High School. She had a 6 ft 4 boyfriend, and she drove a tiny Morris Minor. I often imagined them doing it in that car, which would be neigh on to impossible. Through no fault of hers, my hormones could overcome basic physics... or a burka. :blush: