When will we acknowledge sexism and violence against men is just as real?

[Revoltingest]

Not to mention, I didn't see any feminists at all instigating anything. It looked like plenty came in and gave solidarity if anything. I did however note an old male user who stated that men are 100% interested in women for looks, and women are interested 50% in looks and 50% in money.
That one pretty much went unnoticed.

I don't recall that one. I hereby state that men vary in their level of & reasons for interest in women.

It's long been established at this point that implications can be used in either first or third person. However inferences are still the same as stated.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

Storm's post #47 isn't incipient derailment. It was in response to a post that, again, is so ironically placed in the acknowledgement of violence and sexism against men thread, told in a story in which a neighbor asked for a favor, in which he offered his service but then told a female neighbor to go make a sandwich, in which she stated that he should make his own.
The post stated sympathy with the girl who asked for a favor from a neighbor, but stated someone should make their own sandwich when that person commanded a condition.

The hungry poster's sammich request struck me as commentary on gender roles.....he fixes cars...she prepares food. He should return & settle this for us, dang his hide!

Question, if a male neighbor asked you to look at their tractor for them, and you said sure, but but then told him to make a sandwich, how do you think he would respond...? "Well of course, since this anecdote will somehow be correlated with some political point later."

I wouldn't ask anyone to make me a sammich in return for a favor, unless I knew them very well, & that they'd do a proper job of it. I know several people I could trust with that....1 gal, & 3 guys.

 

[freethinker44]

Fair enough. It shouldn't be most women get sexually assaulted. It should be tens of millions of women get sexually assaulted all over the world.

Tens of millions? More like hundreds of millions. There are 7 billion people on Earth, about half are women. But I think we should just stick to percentages. In my experience people tend use astronomical numbers when they want to give the perception that something is greater or worse than it really is. It's kind of a way to misrepresent statistics while using correct statistics at the same time, isn't it?

It just causes confusion, just as it did for you when you tried to use it in your post. You thought you could throw out tens of millions like it was a lot and sounded a lot worse than "most" or 20%, when in fact it wasn't even close and much lower than the actual number. So let's stick with manageable numbers so we don't confuse others... or ourselves, shall we?

 

[Revoltingest]

What does this standard of sophistry have to do with feminists. You know I'm individual person, right? Who in no way represents feminists, communists, males, white people, humans as a whole. And no, I don't read Shakespeare.

You claimed to speak as a feminist when you accepted my challenge about feminists decrying the offensive slogan. Now you're stuck with the role of being an example. Of course, you wouldn't represent every flavor of feminism. When I last searched the internet, I came up with over 2 dozen different kinds of feminism. There's even "libertarian feminism" (my favorite).
An odd thing I notice....feminists themselves often make even broader generalizations about feminism. We should all strive to be precise.

 

[Revoltingest]

It being a code word for merriment & games is often an implication, rarely an inference.

Are you exhibiting "sarchasm"...or sarcasm? Join us over in the jokes/games forum to see how the word "sammich" is used & interpreted.

 

[Revoltingest]

What does this standard of sophistry have to do with feminists. You know I'm individual person, right? Who in no way represents feminists, communists, males, white people, humans as a whole. And no, I don't read Shakespeare.

Who's Shakespeare? Is she a feminist?

 

[dust1n]

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

I'm often embarrassed using words incorrectly. This isn't one of those instances.

The conclusion that can be drawn from something, although it is not explicitly stated

implication: definition of implication in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

Noun
implication (countable and uncountable, plural implications)

1. (uncountable) The act of implicating.
2. (uncountable) The state of being implicated.
3. (countable) An implying, or that which is implied, but not expressed; an inference, or something which may fairly be understood, though not expressed in words.
   • 2011, Lance J. Rips, Lines of Thought: Central Concepts in Cognitive Psychology (page 168)
     But we can also take a more analytical attitude to these displays, interpreting the movements as no more than approachings, touchings, and departings with no implication that one shape caused the other to move.
   
   implication: definition of implication in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

The hungry poster's sammich request struck me as commentary on gender roles.....he fixes cars...she prepares food. He should return & settle this for us, dang his hide!

Earlier you seemed very concerned about how about "Dead men don't rape" might be taken incorrectly, despite the fact the intention was not to address or imply anything about men in general.

However, the fact that someone stating, "Okay, I'll do you this favor. Now go make me a sandwich," might be taken as something other than a strangely timed commentary on gender roles.

I'm going to the shop tomorrow morning as a matter of fact. If I make an arrangement with the mechanic, and come to a deal, and then states, now go grab me a bagel, I'm likely to take my business elsewhere. I shouldn't think, "neighborly."

I wouldn't ask anyone to make me a sammich in return for a favor, unless I knew them very well, & that they'd do a proper job of it. I know several people I could trust with that....1 gal, & 3 guys.

And how many would you command a order as such as a condition of voluntarily helping with a favor?

 

[dust1n]

Tens of millions? More like hundreds of millions. There are 7 billion people on Earth, about half are women. But I think we should just stick to percentages. In my experience people tend use astronomical numbers when they want to give the perception that something is greater or worse than it really is. It's kind of a way to misrepresent statistics while using correct statistics at the same time, isn't it?

Whether it be 20 million of 70 trillion, tens of millions isn't inaccurate.

It just causes confusion, just as it did for you when you tried to use it in your post. You thought you could throw out tens of millions like it was a lot and sounded a lot worse than "most" or 20%, when in fact it wasn't even close and much lower than the actual number. So let's stick with manageable numbers so we don't confuse others... or ourselves, shall we?

I tend to notice that people who fetishize their intellectual capacity over others are generally insecure about the fraudulent nature of their intellect. So, I tend to end conversations with those people immediately, like now. Good night.

 

[dust1n]

Who's Shakespeare? Is she a feminist?

Not that I'm aware of. Just a pot smoker.

 

[dust1n]

Are you exhibiting "sarchasm"...or sarcasm? Join us over in the jokes/games forum to see how the word "sammich" is used & interpreted.

I'm not using sarcasm. What does the jokes/game forum have to do with a thread about acknowledging sexism and violence against men?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not using sarcasm. What does the jokes/game forum have to do with a thread about acknowledging sexism and violence against men?

Spend more time there, & you'd know the difference between "sandwich" & "sammich". The latter is accompanied by a wink.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm often embarrassed using words incorrectly. This isn't one of those instances.

The conclusion that can be drawn from something, although it is not explicitly stated

implication: definition of implication in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

Noun
implication (countable and uncountable, plural implications)

1. (uncountable) The act of implicating.
2. (uncountable) The state of being implicated.
3. (countable) An implying, or that which is implied, but not expressed; an inference, or something which may fairly be understood, though not expressed in words.
   • 2011, Lance J. Rips, Lines of Thought: Central Concepts in Cognitive Psychology (page 168)
     But we can also take a more analytical attitude to these displays, interpreting the movements as no more than approachings, touchings, and departings with no implication that one shape caused the other to move.
   
   implication: definition of implication in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

Earlier you seemed very concerned about how about "Dead men don't rape" might be taken incorrectly, despite the fact the intention was not to address or imply anything about men in general.

However, the fact that someone stating, "Okay, I'll do you this favor. Now go make me a sandwich," might be taken as something other than a strangely timed commentary on gender roles.

I'm going to the shop tomorrow morning as a matter of fact. If I make an arrangement with the mechanic, and come to a deal, and then states, now go grab me a bagel, I'm likely to take my business elsewhere. I shouldn't think, "neighborly."

So many words & links, but all for naught. You said, ".... with your own implications" to refer to my inferred meaning (interpretation), but I'm not the one who would imply anything because I didn't utter the slogan.

And how many would you command a order as such as a condition of voluntarily helping with a favor?

"Command"? Did you not see that I used the word, "ask"?
I don't command people except in the following circumstances:
1) People work for me.
2) Children in my care doing something very wrong.
3) Government employees on my property without my permission. In this case, commands are most colorful.

 

[dust1n]

Spend more time there, & you'd know the difference between "sandwich" & "sammich".

I wasn't originally referring to the sandwich, except for RevRick's case. But my objection to your the post was suggest that guys lacked tomatoes and that they needed to grow them... in a thread about sexism against guys.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wasn't originally referring to the sandwich, except for RevRick's case. But my objection to your the post was suggest that guys lacked tomatoes and that they needed to grow them... in a thread about sexism against guys.

Did you not see Smart Guy's & my brief discussion about tomatoes as either fruit or vegetable? My reference was a continuation of that exchange. I've never heard of "tomatoes" referring to testicles. Where did you learn English?

 

[dust1n]

So many words & links, but all for naught. You said, ".... with your own implications" to refer to my inferred meaning (interpretation), but I'm not the one who would imply anything because I didn't utter the slogan.

Oh, sorry, didn't realize I put "your own." Oh well.

"Command"? Did you not see that I used the word, "ask"?
I don't command people except in the following circumstances:
1) People work for me.
2) Children in my care doing something very wrong.
3) Government employees on my property without my permission. In this case, commands are most colorful.

The command is in the original post that was being responded to, in which response you used as example as feminists twisting this thread into making themselves the victims, even though this thread was nothing like that.

 

[dust1n]

Did you not see Smart Guy's & my brief discussion about tomatoes as either fruit or vegetable? My reference was a continuation of that exchange. I've never heard of "tomatoes" referring to testicles. Where did you learn English?

Oh, I see. I thought that was a double entendre. That I am actually embarrassed about.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, sorry, didn't realize I put "your own." Oh well.
The command is in the original post that was being responded to, in which response you used as example as feminists twisting this thread into making themselves the victims, even though this thread was nothing like that.

I'm getting lost in your inscrutable references. Do you have any clear & direct questions? I'm up for answering those.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, I see. I thought that was a double entendre. That I am actually embarrassed about.

I can't do double entendres. (I don't speak French.)

Hey, you're smarter than most around here.
No worries.

 

[dust1n]

I'm getting lost in your inscrutable references. Do you have any clear & direct questions? I'm up for answering those.

...

But it doesn't end there....consider that this is a thread about recognizing sexism & violence towards men. What ill irony it is that instead of this, we find feminists actually tolerating the advocacy of violence towards men because of the sexist presumption that they're rapists. In a thread about difficulties faced by men in particular, feminists have steered the thread to make it about them & their victimhood.

By the way, feminists haven't steered this thread anywhere regarding themselves. Someone steered this thread in a focus-on-this-one-slogan as if it were some real grievance, despite the fact that you seemed to let it go 3 years after one post on this first page.

Check post #47 for incipient derailment. Now, what is wrong with reanimating an old thread? The new RF actually suggests these old things to us. How can I resist such delicious treats!?

Storm's post #47 isn't incipient derailment. It was in response to a post that, again, is so ironically placed in the acknowledgement of violence and sexism against men thread, told in a story in which a neighbor asked for a favor, in which he offered his service but then told a female neighbor to go make a sandwich, in which she stated that he should make his own.

Point being that in the original response that brought me in here tonight was inaccurate in terms of stating that feminists came in this thread and twisted it into anything. I think I said two things in this thread three years ago, and got sucked into some weird comments some weird guy made to something said I forever ago.

Anyways.

 

[dust1n]

I can't do double entendres. (I don't speak French.)

Hey, you're smarter than most around here.
No worries.

No worries here. I don't tie people's intellect on misunderstandings or mistakes, generally speaking. I come on here to read and write swiftly, not work on and grade essays.

 

[Revoltingest]

...
Point being that in the original response that brought me in here tonight was inaccurate in terms of stating that feminists came in this thread and twisted it into anything. I think I said two things in this thread three years ago, and got sucked into some weird comments some weird guy made to something said I forever ago.
Anyways.

Yipes! Massively more words! I'm getting foggy (fogey?), & think we've beaten this dead horse enuf.
How about we agree that gender equality with bodily autonomy for all is great, & just call it a day?